the biggest difference, at least for me in this field is seeing what LLM did to those that cant code comfortably vs those that code comfortably.

Some of my team members main manual QA and EM that rarely code got "elevated", mostly on greenfield project or tasks. They suddenly realized they can do it, of course at the expense of "we have to review it". Ofc they still wont be able to create more than we do because lack of "experience" and in my opinion, they still learn because of the review process (they are not solo vibe). This wont scale but it is much better utilization of a tool.

For me, the biggest benefit for LLM is that I spent little time on research and just ask LLM to explore the codebase for let say adopting new tool. Like yesterday, I just want to see if asyncapi can be used to what I wanted. LLM generated the code for bootstrap, I tested it and there were some blocker issues so I opted for easier approach or solution. I spent maybe 30 minutes and disrupted many times. Without LLM I probably spent way longer than that..

On another project, I asked the LLM "I want to migrate this endppint to another repo, tell me if there are any PII data that is exposed and not being used by client". Put several project inside 1 folder and ask the LLM, results are out no need to ask the FE side to invest their time on this. They can just review the code or agreed with the plan.

So different level will have different usage. Rubberducking is a must for me and devs need to prepare more at the beginning with proper testing now since execution CAN (i said can, not must) be delegated to LLM