Even where they are not directly using LLMs to write the most critical or core code, nearly every skeptic I know has started using LLMs at very least to do things like write tests, build tools, write glue code, help to debug or refactor, etc.

Your statement suffers not only from also coming only from your brain, with no evidence that you've actually tried to learn to use these tools, but it also goes against the weight of evidence that I see both in my professional network and online.

My person experience: if I can find a solution on stackoverflow etc. the LLM will produce working and fundamentally correct code. If I can‘t find a already fullfilled solution on these sites, the LLM is hallucinating like crazy (newer existing functions/modules/plugins, protocol features which aren’t specified and even github-repos which never existed). So, as stated my many people online before: for low-hanging fruits LLM are totally viable solution.

But you have just repeated what you are complaining about.

> Here we go again. Statements with the single source in the head of the speaker. And it’s also not true.

You're making the same sort of baseless claim you are criticising the blogger for making. Spewing baseless claims hardly moves any discussion forward.

> The llms still produce bad/irrelevant code at such rate that you can spend more time promoting than doing things yourself.

If that is your personal experience then I regret to tell you that it is only the reflection of your own inability to work with LLMs and coding agents. Meanwhile, I personally manage to effectively use LLMs anywhere between small refactoring needs and large software architecture designs, including generating fully working MVPs in one-shot agent prompts. From this alone it's rather obvious who is making baseless statements that are more aligned with reality.