> strong types are disproportionately valuable in LLM coding vs human coding because they essentially function as context and the typechecker actively enforces correctness

One could argue that this was a large benefit for human coding long before LLMs became useful.

It is why I always preferred strongly-typed languages.

And once we had practical strongly-typed languages with implicit type inference I really couldn't wrap my head around why anyone would prefer dynamic typing other than just inertia due to that being what they were used to.