May I ask about your level of experience and which AI you tried to use? I have a strong suspicion these two factors are rarely mentioned, which leads to miscommunication. For example, in my experience, up until recently you could get amazing results, but only if you had let's say 5+ years of experience AND were willing to pay at least $100/month for Claude Code AND followed some fairly trivial usage policies (e.g., using the "ultrathink" keyword, planning mode etc) AND didn't feel lazy actually reading the output. Quite often people wouldn't meet one of those criteria and would call out the AI hype bubble.

From the very beginning everyone tells us “you are using the wrong model”. Fast forward a year, the free models become as good as last year premium models and the result is still bad but you still hear the same message “you are not using the last model”… I just stopped caring to try the new shiny model each month and simply reevaluate the state of the art once a year for my sanity. Or maybe my expectation is clearly too high for these tools.

This discussion is a request for positive examples to demonstrate any of the recent grandiose claims about ai assisted development. Attempting to switch instead to attacking the credentials of posters only seems to supply evidence that there are no positive examples, only hype. It doesn't seem to add to the conversation.

> would call out the AI hype bubble

Which is what it is by describing it as a tool needing thousands of dollars and years of time in learning fees while being described as "replaces devs" in an instant. It is a tool and when used sparingly by well trained people, works. To the extend that any large statistical text predictor would.