OK, so it sounds like this is a 'I know for certain I can't code without AI and that I get nothing coherent done, and now I'm doing the greatest things all the

OK, so it sounds like this is a 'I know for certain I can't code without AI and that I get nothing coherent done, and now I'm doing the greatest things all the time, so you're demonstrably wrong!' argument. I would ask, then, if you're qualified to evaluate that what 'you' are doing now is what you think it is? Writing off 'does it lead to other problems' with 'no doubt, but' feels like something to watch closely. I imagine a would-be novelist who can't write a line. They've got some general notions they want to be brilliant at, but they're nowhere. Apply AI, and now there's ten million words, a series, after their continual prompts. Are they a novelist, or have they wasted a lot of time and energy cosplaying a novelist? Is their work a communication, or is it more like an inbox full of spam into which they're reading great significance because they want to believe?