> Most developers beyond juniors can generally write code that at least compiles on the first pass, even if it isn't functionally correct.

Hahaha. I’ve been coding for over 20 years and this is definitely not the case.

> Current AI models often generate code that doesn't even compile.

Most of the code ChatGPT has given me, has run/compiled on the first try. And it’s been a lot longer and complex than what I would have written on a first pass.

Let’s just learn to use these tools instead of trying to justify human superiority.

I've found with my own projects that the AI allows me to focus on the interesting stuff. I was porting some quant work from a Jupyter notebook into a flask app, and the AI is quite handy at providing boilerplate for stuff that isn't relevant to what I want to work on. I need a site that can display charts for a given analysis of an indicator, and ChatGPT handled that for me quite handily.

> Most developers beyond juniors can generally write code that at least compiles on the first pass,

Aha. Maybe you know super clever people or people who learned in the 60-80s when cycles (and reboots etc) mattered or were costly; this incredibly far from the norm.

Is that a problem though? In this IDE the LLM sees the error message and tries to fix it, possibly while the developer who wrote the prompt is off doing something else.