This same argument could be applied to anything. Layers of abstraction exist for a reason, because at a certain point, we can only deal with so many things at once. We have to be able to delegate "the details" to others -- be that a person, a company, or an AI model.
Does "not getting into the details" mean you have to understand how the GCC compiler works when you write C code? Do you need to be an expert in machine code, or how SSE and pipelined instruction caches work to write your little bit of code? Do you need to understand how Ethernet frames work to write an API route for a web server?
Knowing how these things work can be helpful in a broader sense, and perhaps when encountering weird edge cases or dealing with exotic implementation but are generally not required to get the job done. The details, simply put, don't matter because someone else has already thought through the problem and solved it in a way that is good enough for the vast majority of use cases.
The same goes with AI. It's helpful to know how things work, but as the models continue to get better and better, it doesn't matter. As long as they are trained properly by someone who does know the details, that's a far better place to be than training a million different people on it who will each have their own biases, levels of understanding and misconceptions.
You're confusing translation and interpretation. A compiler is merely translating your code into a lower-level form. (There is a degree of heuristic-based interpretation that goes into generating good code, but the code's observable behavior is not allowed to change.)
But an LLM has to interpret your words and make judgment calls about the logical details, which is a very different thing. An LLM sufficiently intelligent to make acceptable judgment calls in all situations (acceptable enough to ship to production without human review of those details) would likely be indistinguishable from AGI.
I didn't interpret it as an argument about layers of abstraction. You need to be in the detail at the level you're writing (and it's certainly advantageous to know some of the detail of the abstractions below) because you're building abstractions on top of that, because the details subtly change at the base level you're building at, impacting the level that you're building to.
Your vouching for centralization of knowledge, and even understanding, which I think is a very bad idea. It’s not like the rest of us are becoming specialized at something else - knowledge, in the broad sense, is the foundation of all skills. Without it we have nothing to contribute
You are free to learn whatever you want to. I'm saying I would greatly prefer talking to an AI model that was trained by an expert or the guy who created it, or trained via an RL environment that guarantees its correctness (where possible), and not take a chance on whatever or whoever happens to be teaching the subject that day. My experiences are my own, but I have repeatedly encountered people time and time again who profess to know how something works or have a deep understanding of something and it turns out that they, in fact, do not. It turns out its very easy to convince people you are knowledgeable about something who don't know anything about the subject.