I don’t understand the point. We are all free to disobey and have to deal with the consequences. It can’t be otherwise. Nobody can pass as an automaton.
This is a qualitatively different kind of abstraction. All other abstractions still require the programmer to express the solution in a formal language, while LLMs are allowing the user to express the solution in natural language. It's no longer programming, but much more like talking to a programmer as a manager.
Buddhism claims that our feeling of separation (and thus the multiplicity of subjective experiences) is an illusion. But I never really understood why.
My hunch is that this is related to the question of why we are experiencing this particular moment in time and not another one in the past or in the future, is related. If you believe in the many words interpretation of quantum mechanics, one can also say why I’m experiencing this particular branch.
I feel this resonates with mindfulness lifestyle: give your full attention to the present moment and the quality of your activity (and product) will show.
I don’t think any technique is inherently bad: imperative, global variables, and even “goto” can be used wisely to solve problems.
Functional programming (similarly type systems) is another great technique to use when you have constraints that you’d like to be automatically enforced by the compiler (referential transparency, equational reasoning, etc.)
When I have to use a language that doesn’t allow expressing problems functionally when that would be the ideal expression of it, I feel I’m using the wrong tool for the job.