This seems like a very flawed assumption to me. My take is that people look at hallucinations and say "wow, if it can't even get the easiest things consistently right, no way am I going to trust it with harder things".
The opaque wall that separates the solution from the problem in technology often comes from the very steep initial learning curve. The reason most people who are developers now learned to code is because they had free time when they were young, had access to the technology, and were motivated to do it.
But as an adult, very few people are able to get past the first obstacles which keep them from eventually becoming proficient, but now they have a cheat code. So you will see a lot more capable programmers in the future who will be able to help you fix this backlog of bad code -- we just have to wait for them to gain the experience and knowledge needed before that happens and deal with the mistakes along the way.
This is no different from any other enabling technology. The people who feel like they had to struggle through it and pay their dues when it 'wasn't easy' are going to be resentful and try and gatekeep; it is only human nature.
Coding is unique. One can't replace considered, forward-thinking data flow design reasoning with fancy guesswork and triage.
Should anyone build a complex brick wall by just iterating over the possible solutions? Hell no. That's what expertise is for, and that is only attained via hard graft, and predicting the next word is not going to be a viable substitute.
It's all a circle jerk of people hoping for a magic box.
Are you really unique because you are one of only a few special people who can code because of some innate ability? Or is it that you have above average intelligence, have a rather uncommon but certainly not rare ability to think a certain way, and had an opportunity and interest which honed those talents to do something most people can't?
How would you feel if you never had access to a computer with a dev environment until you were an adult, and then someone told you not to bother learning how to code because you aren't special like they are?
The 'magic box' is a way to get past the wall that requires people to spend 3 hours trying to figure out what python environments are before they can even write a program that does anything useful.
But it all compounds. Going from reading to doing takes little time and I’m able to use much denser information repositories.
If you have to spend three hours reading about python environments, that’s just a signal that your foundation is lacking (you don’t know how your tools work). Using LLM is flying blind and hoping you will land instead of crashing.
One quibble, however, is that python environments are a mess (as is any 3rd party software use in any environment, in my limited experience), and I refuse to use any such thing, when at all possible. If I couldn't directly integrate that code into my codebase, I won't waste my time, because every dependency is another point of failure, either the author's or (more likely) that I might muck up my use of it. Then, there are issues such as versioning, security, and even the entire 3rd party management software itself. It does not look like it will actually save me any time, and might end up being a huge drag on my progression.
That said, using an LLM for ANYTHING is super risky IMO. Like you said, a person should read about what the think they want to utilize, and then incrementally build up the needed skills and experience by using it.
There are many paths in life that have ZERO shortcuts, but there are also many folks who refuse to acknowledge that difficult work is sometimes absolutely unavoidable.