This isn't a commentary on AI, but specifically the idea that all you need to achieve is "it works". That's based on the fallacious premise that a human can reasonably bucket a program (especially one as complex as an end-user application) into "working" and "not working". You don't know it's "not working" until you know, which may in some cases be never.

As for AI specifically, robust testing is already difficult with human-curated logic. It's potentially more likely to miss failing cases, or non-binaries (e.g. performance, security), when testing genAI. More subjectively, your conjecture represents a mindset that is demotivating to people with certain flavors of creativity/passion. Also, overreliance on AI may blunt skills that may remain useful, and even important - i.e. it may exacerbate an expertise scarcity.

(this may make me sound more negative on AI that I am - remember that I'm commenting in the context of the post you're replying to)