Letting a robot write code for me, however tedious it would be to write manually, made me feel like I was working in someone else's codebase. It reminds me of launching a videogame and letting someone else play through the boring parts. I might as well not be playing. Why bother at all?

I understand this behaviour if you're working for a company on some miserable product, but not for personal projects.

So I am in the same boat, AI can write some good skeleton code for different purposes so I can get running faster but with anything complex and established it serves very little benefit. I'll end up spending more time trying to understand why and how it is doing something then I'd spend just doing it myself. When AI is a magical fix button that's awesome, but even in those circumstances I'm just buying LLM-debt - if I never need to touch that code again it's fine, but if I need to revise the code then I'll need to invest more time into understanding it and cleaning it up then I initially saved.

I'm not certain how much other folks are feeling this or if it's just me and the way my brain works, but I struggle to see the great savings outside of dead simple tasks.

AI stops coding being about the journey, and makes it about the destination. That is the polar opposite of most people's coding experience as a professional. Most developers are not about the destination, and often don't really care about the 'product', preferring to care about the code itself. They derive satisfaction from how they got to the end product instead of the end product itself.

For those developers who just want to build a thing to drive business value, or because they want a tool that they need, or because they think the end result will be fun to have, AI coding is great. It enables them to skip over (parts of) the tedious coding bit and get straight to the result bit.

If you're coding because you love coding then obviously skipping the coding bit is going to be a bad time.

Then they aren't programmers anymore, are they? We don't call people using no-code platforms "programmers" and we wouldn't trust them one bit to review actual code.

AI is simply the new no-code platform, except that the scope of what it can do is much larger while the reliability of what it produces is much lower.

In the future though, sure,it'll be possible to build a decent app without ever seeing or understanding the code.

The customer/user can't tell the difference between a good working app and a poor working app.

Come on man, this is the whole reason Duolingo was people's favourite language learning app, or people claim they like iPhones over Android phones or Photoshop over Canva. These apps and devices all work, but which one is good or better is a debate. People have preferences; some apps in a category are easier to use than others, and some apps have branding that signals status. Now, those things become more important in differentiating your app than "It does what it is supposed to do". Until now, just getting an app to do what you wanted it to do was a competitive advantage, that's becoming a smaller advantage day by day

I do the same as you with AI now, it's allowing me to build simple things quickly and revise later. Sometimes I never have to. I feel similarly that I'm no longer progressing as a dev just maintaining what I know. That might change I might adapt how I approach work and find the balance but for now it's a new activity entirely.

I've talked to many people over the years who saw coding as a get shit done activity. Stop when it's good enough. They never approached it really as a hobby and a learning experience. It wasn't about self progression to them. Mentioning that I read computer books resulted in a disgusted face "You can just google what you need when you need it".

Always felt odd to me, software development was my hobby something I loved not just a job. Now I think they will thrive in this world. It's pure results. No need to know a breath of things or what's out there to start on the right foot. AI has it all somewhere in it's matrix. Hopefully they develop enough taste to figure out what's good from bad when it's something that matters.

I'm not sure I'll ever write this kind of code again now. For months now all I've done is think about the higher level architectural decisions and prompt agents to write the actual code, which I find enjoyable, but architectural decisions are less clean and therefore for me less enjoyable. There's often a very clear good and bad way to right a method, but how you organise things at a higher level is much less binary. I rarely ever get that, "yeah, I've done a really good job there" feeling when making higher level decisions, but more of "eh, I think this is probably a good solution/compromise, given the requirements".

Tim Bryce, one of the foremost experts on software methodology, hated programmers and considered them deeply sad individuals who had to compensate for their mediocre intelligence and narrow thinking by gatekeeping technology and holding the rest of the company hostage to them. And, he said upper management in corporate America agreed with him.

If you place a lot of value in being a good programmer, then to the real movers and shakers in society you are at best a tool they can use to get even richer. A tool that will soon be replaced by a machine. The time has come for programmers to level up their soft skills and social standing, and focus their intelligence on the business rather than the code. It sucks but that's the reality of the AI era.

"What do they want?"

This is the standard way to refer to an unknown person in English, anything else sounds awkward. "What does the person want", "what does he or she want", "what does this 'someone' want", none of these will sound natural to a native speaker.

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me As if I were their well-acquainted friend

English has always used the singular they, especially (but not always) when the gender of the target of the pronoun is unknown.

  outline: solid 10px red;