Writing tests is a good example. It’s not great at writing tests, but it is definitely better than the average developer when you take the probability of them writing tests in the first place into account.

Outside of everything else discussed here, this is something I disagree with on a fundamental level, flawed tests are worse than no tests, IMO.
Not to get too deep in to the very contentious space of testing in development, but when it comes to automated testing, I think we're better off with more rigorous^[Validating tests through chaos/mutagen testing; or model verification (e.g. Kani)] testing instead of just chasing test coverage metrics.

instead of just using a proper IDE with go-to-definition

I have seen people use an IDE that has the functionality, but searching it instead.
And then not finding it because it is in an out of project header, even though the IDE provides an F1 help (documentation) for that symbol.

It's seems pretty obvious that crappy automated testing would be better than no testing. That's not much of a challenge. Nor is it "AI".

I mean - the AI models do a lot more than just that one task you know. Or are you a "real programmer" who doesn't need AI tools because "real men" don't need help?