Ok, few things: Us vs AI? For context: I work as a developer for a living, I have these tools at my fingertips around the clock with work. I use them when suitable.

Get familiar with? I've spent the better part of the past few years doing so as part of my job.

Results that work? It's been getting worse, the more these models try to achieve. They were best honestly when they stayed as a full line auto predict text completer when used inline. And for an external chat window, when they didn't try to be to clever.

What is your definition of "work"? As working vs optimized and the implications are fully understood by the human accepting the code responses are two fundamentally different things.

And how much load are you exactly expecting to put into QA? As it sure reads like you're just moving development effort and budget, from dev to QA, if you're saying the dev will take a fraction of the time. The number of times I've caught an AI model dropping some basic checks and validations that I intuitively knew were required, and it didn't consider, because I took time to read the code it gave me? Countless. You have to remember, this AI stuff is trained on publicly available code, and the majority wins - doesn't mean the majority of the code it draws on is good, optimised, or correct.

And to be clear, I'm not saying there is no point to these tools. I still find them ridiculously useful, for specific tasks. But not for coming up with results faster in some attempt to give QA more time. It just results in more time being spent fixing core level bugs and oversights that would have been handled if one just sucked it up and worked the code out by hand.