I agree. The main issue with AI in that respect is that there's no easy way to know how much it actually did vs how much value the user added while using it.

Things made mostly with AI are terrible in the long (or even short) run, but if important phases like analysis or design are mostly done without AI, the results are great, since it saves a lot of time for specific tasks.

I feel like this is the same as any tool, with the difference being that someone can fully hide that they used AI without it being initially evident, or lazy people use it as a shortcut to avoid learning. As long as you got all the base knowledge right and guide the AI yourself instead of letting it control you, it has potential.

Also, AI slop is so common nowadays that there's a bias towards them and all projects that use AI get labeled as bad by default, which doesn't help either.

You can know a hole is not straight. You can see it. Besides, if your house is built by someone that doesn't know how a drill works, well, it's going to crash down over you. Then why are we accepting works of people that can't and doesn't know how to properly use the tool?

Now, both of your examples have a person having to use the tool and know how to use it... IA is having the drill doing a hole by itself and just say "good enough". The house will crash down.

My point stand against both your examples. Both requires a human doing the work and the human to know how to use it to be useful. If the difference between a surgeon and a butcher is precision and knowledge, why are we allowing the butchers in on everything?

"IA" at best is a tool and at worst is a substitute. A "tool" that doesn't ask anything from you is not a tool.

I stand by it's not a tool. It's a substitute. But even by labeling as a tool, why should accept works from people that doesn't know how to use it and when? By following your examples we can't trust anyone claiming "I did this" with an "IA" until we or a professional inspect it, and since you can't inspect the absurd volume of things "IA" spits, the only solution left is ignore it all. Either you trust blindly on the guy that says he knows how to use the drill and risk your house falling down, or only accept works of a professional, and if you only take the job of professionals then what's the use for "IA" then?

When Babbage first proposed the Difference Engine, one aristocratic onlooker asked, "But but how will it find the right answer, when someone enters the question wrong?"

Calculators will confidently tell you the square root of seventeen if that's what you type in, even if that's not the hypotenuse of a right triangle with sides of length twelve and five. You can slap the keys to your heart's content and almost certainly get the answer to some problem.

Critics need to consider - if you genuinely could not use an LLM wrong, there would be nothing to talk about. They'd just work.