Code is the God in the machine.

Then God has no soul.

Yes, code defines what happens, how it happens. But what defines what the code is intended to do? Where is the intelligent design? You can wire up a bunch of relays with intelligent design, simple electrical work, define gates, build the gates into memory registers and arithmetic processing stages, make a CPU - but... are you any closer to achieving the goal for having done all that work?

Are you better off for having a hands-on deep understanding of the machine from electrical first principles, or does the warehouse full of circuits and wires and the power it consumes outweigh that benefit?

If you use a modern processor do you need to have hands-on the assembly code? Do you need to deconstruct and understand every stage of the compilers and linkers and optimizers? In the 1990s I did, because those stages weren't reliable enough, yet.

There's nothing different about "deterministic code" built on layers and layers of tools today than there was about assembly code built on the processors before than there was about assemblies of modular circuits that form processors and memories and peripherals... it's all parts of the system. And for critics of the "unpredictability" of LLM code generation, you might want to look into the mysteries of "garbage collected" languages.

If I eventually stop writing C or Rust or Go or Python or Javascript or any of the other hundreds of common choices of languages out there and instead learn to feed a LLM with instructions that generates the Rust that generates the Assembly that drives the CPU that manipulates the electron flows - that doesn't change the intelligent design of: making a thing do what it is intended to do.