I don't think that's a good lesson.
replyOP is right that code duplication is far cheaper than the wrong abstraction, but the opposite is also true - the right abstraction is far cheaper than code duplication.
It's made me wonder the same, but most LLM generated codebases haven't been around long enough to judge maintainability. I have noticed issues in some of my more LLM heavy code when I expect a change to be replicated in multiple areas, assuming common code / styling was reused, only to find it wasn't. It's for that reason I can't use LLMs for client codebases without heavy scrutiny of every line generated (for my own hobby projects I'm a lot more lenient)
replyWell sooner or later I would expect a developer who intimately understands their code base to feel compelled to start refactoring and extracting fitting, meaningful well-leveraged abstractions.
replyI don't think that will happen anytime soon. Prompts are the code now, and programming languages code is compilation product. Almost nobody optimizes compiled assembly code.
replyPerhaps "recompilation" - rewrite by replaying all prompts in strict code quality context (linters, complexity & dedup checks) would make better abstractions.
The only problem now is that LLMs are non-deterministic.
> Almost nobody optimizes compiled assembly code.
replyCompiled assembly code is not an input to the next compilation; source code is an input to the LLM's next inference.
Sure, maybe "prompts are the code," but you must realize that code is also the prompt.