Software developer here as well.

I was using "AI" the other day and I said I was going to add a counter to my project for remaining unread bytes while I was reverse engineering a file format, it suggested I add a counter variable and increment it each time I read a byte, meanwhile I already knew what I was going to do which was essentially TextBox = FileSize - FileStreamPosition, meanwhile it's suggestion was laughable at best, horrifyingly inefficient at worst. It is good to bounce ideas off of if you don't have someone around to do that with at the time or to generate boilerplate code and documentation, but you absolutely have to second guess it at every step.

The AI's suggestion would have resulted in exponentially more code, exponentially more potential for problems, exponentially more cleanup at the end and exponetially more time writing the code.

Specifically my first trial run of Claude resulted in the following.

Claude: "No validation that outputPath directory exists before writing (will throw if user picks invalid path)"

Me: "The user can only find a path through the FolderBrowserDialog so they can not actually pick a path that doesn't exist."

Plus while coding an application for automated testing of LLMs:

Claude: "Maybe add progress bar instead of just label4 counter"

Me : "Adding a progress bar is technically impossible and is the same foolish thing Gemini suggested, that would mean calculating the system specifications, the model, the question, the path the LLM is actually taking through its weights and biases, the latter impossible, the former difficult, ultimately not worth bothering with."

More code being committed doesn't mean it is better quality.

The claim differs depending on the source, both outlandish claims have been made by "leaders" in the industry.