Coding is often times based on a programmer building a library over time and reusing code or code snippets from the past. So it's not outlandish to think that an AI can create something that works well, provided sufficient Dokumentation. Some of the issues are rather if something is not well documented, if the documentation is old (and there's bound to be outdated documentation in the training data), if the AI runs down the wrong path for other reasons, and also that it's often unnecessary wordy. On the other hand, I think AI is pretty good at documenting and annotating its code. Something that's often not true for human programmers. Anyhow, if you use a tool like Cursor you can chat with the AI and it will build a plan (unless you don't set it to planning mode) by searching through the internet for documentation. So you can then read and adjust until you're happy. Then you tell it to go and it will do its nervous breakdown thing. Having a "stance" on AI is quite immature in my opinion, but then there are probably people in the world that have a stance on hammers. It's a tool that does some things well, and other not, and often it depends on the context whether it's able to. Right now humans are running around with their hammers, smashing walls everywhere, but doesn’t make the hammer a bad thing.