> For many, writing software is more about crafting a beautiful design than typing lines of code.

Yes, I count myself as one of these people, hence not caring much about the actual typing part.

> Getting things done is not about crafting, though (although crafting IS about getting something done).

I'd say it is, I like getting things done, hence I care about high quality code and proper design/architecture of the software itself and its concepts. Without caring about those things, you can "get things done" initially but as the thing grows, it gets slower and more complex. I like when "get things done" is applicable over years and as the software grows, then you need to carefully deliberate about almost every change and be vigilant about the design and architecture.

> Thus the big clash when suddenly you can get things done well enough, without the craft part, with LLMs. Even if beauty and elegance are in there, most would not see it, because most do not want to review "LLM slop".

Right, but no one is forcing you to go down that path. You can tell the LLM "Build a calculator" or you can come up with the design then tell the LLM to implement the design exactly, the choice is up to you. Since I care about the abstractions, design and cohesive architecture, I do the latter, and if you too do not care about the typing but the crafting, I'd advise people to also make that latter choice instead of the first.