Certainly, it's easier to produce solutions now, but I wouldn't underestimate the knowledge you have, and say that others who are capable of using AI to produce the same output have the same understanding that you do.

Personally, I find that I am able to produce excellent outcomes with AI with respect to the topics that I have the most expertise in, and passingly acceptable outcomes in things that I know very little about.

Some people make things from a pragmatic standpoint - they need a solution in a space where the existing solutions don't fit for some reason, and they decide to make their own. This is, I think, the majority of generative AI coding. A solution needs to be filled, and even if you are an amazing coder, for most of the solution space, AI is going to be faster than you. Your code might be more elegant, but not every problem requires elegance. Sometimes, it just needs to work.

Other people do it for the love of the game. The enjoy solving problems, crafting code, and finding optimum and elegant solutions to problems. This isn't pragmatism, or even close. It's craftwork by masters, or apprentices who want to be masters, and they wouldn't use AI to produce the work any more than they'd ask another human to do it - that would be cross purposes to their goal, which is to do the making.

Both are valid and there should be no shame in either, but I think people confuse the two and the disparity between them causes friction. When you judge a person's work in one paradigm by the other, you're bound to offend and distress them.

Thanks for opening me up to this!

https://www.zdnet.com/article/biometrics-vs-passcodes-what-l...