Fair, I'll never argue against learning as much as one can, but I'm also an intrinsically curious adult like that. That said, in the context of a 12 year old kid not interested in tech, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, even if it is really important water that prepares horses for the future.
I'd also like to raise the semi-philosophical rhetorical: does the robot know how to code or create images?
I'd argue that LLMs have the equivalent of text prediction on steroids as trained by pattern matching all the code on GitHub and Stack Overflow.* The second you do something outside the training data (like work with a company's super secret internal tooling, use a library that's fallen out of favor, or worse yet use a library with a confusingly similar name to another more popular library) that "knowledge" is less than useless.
Similarly, spitting out an image that looks like the training data doesn't imply an understanding of composition, lightning, color, alignment. leading lines, or any of the other things that make for a compelling image/ photograph/ painting/ etc. Nor does it implicitly translate to being able to create that image in any medium other than digital.
* there's technically also a semantic argument to be made about robots being able to code since the advent of the compiler, but I know that's not what you meant.