AI is great, LLMs are a waste. This has been the case for years before LLMs.
LLMs which the current hype calls AI are the equivalent of a scammy car salesman. To your example of have AI teach you to code - AI is awful at coding. It produces code that is the average of a junior developer’s output. It will look awesome from the outside because it will often mostly work at first, but in reality it’s going to be an unmaintainable mess. An experienced engineer could use one and produce a good outcome, in some cases may be faster than without and in others slower - but the experienced engineer requirement is a must. What this means is your AI teacher by itself is a junior engineer, whose output wouldn’t be trusted by themselves. That’s the level you’ll reach and may even learn and pick up terrible habits that’ll set you back.
It will do all that and consume a ridiculous amount of resources for it compared to following a YouTube course.
I imagine a similar case is true for most industries, people who work in the industry see the absolute garbage coming out of it in large quantities and have to listen to people from the outside who don’t know what good looks like in that context keep saying “oh you are now redundant cuz look how good ai is”.
Meanwhile, it is trained on data stolen from the people who are now losing their jobs because the idiotic decision makers are on the side of believing how good the output looks like. AND there is more, it’s doing it wasting a massive amount of resources, which drives up the prices for everyone (think all electrical devices needing computers, electricity prices). But what what money are they using for it? Oh yes! The money generated out of thin air by the corporations generating this massive AI bubble, which is most likely going to end with a crash that will decimate the market (and therefore the investments and pensions of people). And if the past is any indication, the government will prop the companies up with tax money - so people will pay for it twice.
I’ll also say 5 but I have my gripes with it. Mainly with the “review from any other engineer” aspect that usually comes with it… I have met so many engineers whose review seems to just depend on who created the MR, as opposed to what’s in it. When an MR with 500+ lines changed gets reviewed in about 10s after requesting it, it’s kinda obvious that the system is broken.
The people I’ve worked with who are good at their job and I’d probably be okay with them merging their changes without reviews would always ask for a review, even when it’s not mandatory or enforced. And their MR would already have comments by themselves around bits I might have a question around, and they’d even come with prompts of what they want input on. Whereas the people I wish wouldn’t even be allowed to approve anything would usually ask for an approval instead (even the wording seems telling). Sadly, often these 2 groups will have the same job title and HR will dictate that they should have the same permissions and say in things, which is what usually breaks the system IMO.
And lastly, the amount of people who seem to treat reviews as currency/favours and just rubber stamp each others MRs without looking…sigh.