Someone in a HN thread a few months ago put it in a way that makes a lot of sense to me: "AI seems good at things you are not good at."
So, if you're not actually a programmer, or not a good programmer, you look at AI output and think "Wow, I could never have done that so well/fast. AI is great at this!" It's solving something he's not good at.
On the other hand, if you already are a good/skilled programmer, AI is not solving anything for you. Its output is flawed and has to be manually fixed and refactored. When you consider the prompting and the waiting and the cajoling and the fixing and the refactoring, it's not really doing things faster than you could.
I'm not an artist. To me, AI art seems great, because it's doing something I am very bad at. I think the same is true for AI programming.
So, if you're not actually a programmer, or not a good programmer, you look at AI output and think "Wow, I could never have done that so well/fast. AI is great at this!" It's solving something he's not good at.
On the other hand, if you already are a good/skilled programmer, AI is not solving anything for you. Its output is flawed and has to be manually fixed and refactored. When you consider the prompting and the waiting and the cajoling and the fixing and the refactoring, it's not really doing things faster than you could.
I'm not an artist. To me, AI art seems great, because it's doing something I am very bad at. I think the same is true for AI programming.