I agree with your observations, in my own job I cover a great deal of the aspects of all software development practices for a few clients. Probably something you'd normally have a bunch of different roles do. Not because of AI, I have been in this role since before the AI boom, this is just how agency work is sometimes.

My observation is that there is perhaps 15% of my job that has been boosted by AI by quite a lot, and the rest it hasn't touched much at all. Most of the job just isn't coding badically. The code generation aspect is a bit flawed too because to get good results I often spend more time collating requirements and engineering the prompt that I again could have just done it quicker myself.

There is a sweet spot in there where the requirements were easy to write out, and the code was simple enough but there is a lot to write, that it's nice to not have to write it myself. But even then I am finding that AI is often not successful, and if it takes three tries to get it to do the work properly then there is no productivity gain. Often enough time is lost to the failed attempts.

Usually there isn't that much code to write, but it's fairly complex and needs to be correct, which is where I find LLMs have too many failed attempts and waste time.

(I am an 18+ year "everything" developer, my experiences are from using Claude Code)