Naur's "Programming as Theory Building" and LLMs replacing human programmers

Ryle's definition of theory is actually quite reductionist and doesn't lend itself to the argument well because it is too thin to really make the kind of meaningful distinction you'd want.

There are alternative views on theorizing that reject flat positivistic reductions and attempt to show that theories are metaphysical and force us to make varying degrees of ontological and normative claims, see the work of Marx Wartofsky, for example. This view is far more humanistic and ties in directly to sociological bases in praxis. This view will support the author's claims much better. Furthermore, Wartofsky differentiates between different types of cognitive representations (e.g. there is a difference between full blown theories and simple analogies). A lot of people use the term "theory" way more loosely than a proper analysis and rigorous epistemic examination would necessitate.

(I'm not going to make the argument here but fwiw, it's clear under these notions that LLMs do not form theories, however, they are playing an increasingly important part in our epistemic activity of theory development)