technology

The free models are much worse than the $500 per user/month enterprise ones. I have seen these be able to generate working features first hand at work, and I cannot deny that certain models are capable of implementing features when appropriate requirements are provided. To claim anything else would be to deny what I have seen with my own eyes.

However, therein lies the trap. Just because it is capable of achieving the provided task in one instance, doesn't mean that it always provides an appropriate answer or solution in all cases.

But those who have initially used it successfully tend to start believing its output uncritically. I've noticed this on myself when I tried it at work, and I think this is basic human, heck, even animal condition. You are naturally inclined to trust an entity that initially provides you with beneficial output. You become less critical, as the output often sounds informed and convincing, and in many cases provably works as well (especially when a robust testing framework exists inside the project. its only through unit and integration tests that these AIs can even reliably implement features).

But this leads to an increasing reliance on the tech, and you stop being capable of arguing why the solution it generated works. You have to put in active effort to question what it's doing, and you have no way of knowing whether it's telling you the truth or lies, because it has no motive, and researching the facts can take so long that it completely defeats the point of automation. So it ends up being rather self-defeating in many cases, and can leave you less capable of solving problems yourself.

I think the most useful application for it personally is to use it for debugging -- feed it a cryptic error message, and it will usually generate an answer that, while not necessarily accurate, can give you more pointers to find the true answer, much better than most search engines can.