> In an era where an LLM can hallucinate (present you a defect) with 100% conviction, (...)

I think you're trying very hard to find anything at all to criticize LLMs and those who use them, but all you manage to come up with is outlandish, "grasping at straws" arguments.

Yes, it's conceivable that LLMs can hallucinate. How often do they do, though? In my experience, not that much. In the rare cases they do, it's easy to spot and another iteration costs you a couple of seconds to get around it.

So, what are you complaining about, actually? Are you complaining about LLMs or just letting the world know how competent are you at using LLMs?

> Someone with experience will still bring something more than just LLM-written code to the table, and that bar will stay where it is.

Someone with experience leverages LLMs to do the drudge work, and bump up their productivity.

I'm not sure you fully grasp the implications. You're rehashing the kind of short-sighted comments that in the past brought comically-clueless assertions such as "the kids don't know assembly, so how can they write good programs". In the process, you are failing to understand the fact that the way software is written has already changed completely. The job of a developer is no longer typing code away and googling for code references. Now we can refactor and rewrite entire modules, iterate over the design, try a few alternative approaches, pin alternatives against each other, and pick up the one we prefer to post a PR. And then go to lunch. With these tools, some of your "experienced" developers turn out to be not that great, whereas "inexperienced" ones outperform them easily. How do you deal with that?