Definitely disagree. It can regurgitate solved problems from open source codebases, sure. Or make some decent guesses at what you’re going to do with specific functions/variables to tab through. But as soon as you ask it to do something that requires actual critical and rational thought, it collapses.

Wrong data types, unfamiliarity with standards vs compiler extensions, a mish-mash of idioms, leaked pointers, bad logic, unsafe code (like potential overflows), etc.

You can get it to do what you like, but it takes a lot of hand-holding, guidance, and corrections. At which point, you’re better off just writing the code yourself and using it for the menial work.

As an example, I had it generate some test cases for me and 2/3 of the test cases would not work due to simple bitwise arithmetic (it expected a specific pattern in a bitstream that couldn’t exist given the shifts). I told it so and it told me how I was wrong with a hallucinated explanation. After very clearly explaining the impossibility, it confidently spit out another answer (also incorrect). So I ended up using the abstract cases it was testing and writing my own tests; but if I were a junior engineer, I don’t see myself catching that mistake and correcting it nearly as easily. Instead wasting time wondering what is wrong with my code.