This conclusion is completely off the mark. Author seems to lack a critical piece of understanding of software development and operations. The case against no-code might make sense (UI being a hurdle for AI use), but does not apply to low-code.

Low-code has become especially important now with LLMs for several reasons, especially in terms of stability, maintainability, security and scalability.

If the same feature can be implemented with less code, the stability of the software improves significantly. LLMs work much better with solid abstractions; they are not great at coding the whole thing from scratch.

More code per feature costs more in terms of token count, is more error-prone, takes more time to generate, is less scalable, more brittle, harder to maintain, harder to audit... These are major negatives to avoid when working with LLMs... So I don't understand how author reached the conclusion that they reached.