I still do the part of my job that I got experience on, analyze the need, and use the AI like an assistant to do small libraries or part of code. Like these, errors have less chance to appear. Then I glue that together.
For me the time ratio is best use like that. If I have to describe the whole thing, I'm not far from doing it myself, so there's no need for me.
Important: I work alone, not in a team, so maybe it has an impact on my thought
Then we can give someone that entire string of prompts as a repeatable recipe.
I mean it's even further than willful ignorance. It's delight in one's own ignorance.
The fact that it works is amazing, but I'm less convinced that it's enhancing my productivity.
(I think they real productivity boost for me is if I still write the code and have the assistant write test coverage based on diffs, which is trivial to prompt for good results)
Something I've found useful with Claude Code is that it works a lot better if I give it many small tasks to perform to eventually get the big thing done, rather than just dumping the big thing in its lap. You can do this interactively (prompt, output, prompt, output, prompt, output...) or by writing a big markdown file with the steps to build it laid out.