Businesses wish this were the case, and many will even say it or start to believe it. But it doesn't bare out to be true in practice.

Think about it this way, engineers are expensive so a company is going to want to have as few of them as possible to do as much work as possible. Long before LLMs came along there have been many rounds of "replace expensive engineers" fads.

Visual programming was going to destroy the industry, where any idiot could drag and drop a few boxes and put together software. Turns out that didn't work out and now visual programming is all but dead. Then we had consultants and software consultancies. Why keep engineers on staff and have to deal with benefits and HR functions when you can hire consultants for just long enough to get the job done and end their contracts. Then we had offshoring. Why hire expensive developers in markets like California when you can hire far cheaper engineers abroad in a country with lower wages and laxer employment law. (It's not a quality thing either, many of these engineers are unquestionably excellent.)

Or, think about what happens when software companies get acquired. It's almost unheard of for the acquiring company to layoff all of the engineering staff from the acquired company right away, if anything it's the opposite with vesting incentives to convince engineers to stay.

If all that mattered was the code and the systems, and people were cogs that produced code that businesses wanted to optimise, then none of these actions make sense. You'd see companies offshore and use consultants with the company that does "good enough" as cheaply as possible. You'd see engineers from acquisitions be laid off immediately, replaced with cheaper staff as fast as possible.

There are businesses like that operate like this, it happens all the time. But, all of the most successful and profitable tech companies in the world don't do this. Why?