Generative AI coding tools and agents do not work for me

The main claim made: When there's money or reputation to be lost, code requires the same amount of cognition; irrespective of who wrote the code, AI or not.

Best counter claim: Not all code has the same risk. Some code is low risk, so the risk of error does not detract from the speed gained. For example, for proof of concepts or hobby code.

The real problem: Disinformation. Needless extrapolation, poor analogies, over valuing anecdotes.

But there's money to be made. What can we do, sometimes the invisible hand slaps us silly.

> Best counter claim: Not all code has the same risk. Some code is low risk, so the risk of error does not detract from the speed gained. For example, for proof of concepts or hobby code.

Counter counter claim for these use cases: when I do proof of concept, I actually want to increase my understanding of said concept at the same time, learn challenges involved, and in general get a better idea how feasible things are. An AI can be useful for asking questions, asking for reviews, alternative solutions, inspiration etc (it may have something interesting to add or not) but if we are still in the territory "this matters" I would rather not substitute the actual learning experience and deeper understanding with having an AI generate code faster. Similar for hobby projects, do I need that thing to just work or I actually care to learn how it is done? If the learning/understanding is not important in a context, I would say then using AI to generate the code is a great time-saver. Otherwise, I may still use AI but not in the same way.