I have similar feelings to you, but I want to be careful about making assumptions. That being said, I see so many people making hyperbolic claims about the productivity gains of llms and a huge amount (though not all) of the time, they are doing low value work that betrays their inexperience and/or lack of ability.
I have yet to see a good example of where an llm invented a novel solution to an important problem in programming. Until that happens -- and I'm not saying it won't -- I remain extremely skeptical about the grandiose claims. This is particularly true of the companies selling llm products who make vague claims about productivity benefits. Who is more productive, the person who solves the most leet code problems in a month or the person who implements a new compiler in the same time frame? The former will almost surely have the most lines of code, but they have done nothing of direct value. I point this out because of how often productivity is measured in lines of code and/or time to complete a problem with a known solution.
So for me, when people brag about how much more productive they are with llms, I wonder, ok, well what are you building? I feel like llms are as likely going to make people build fragile bridges to nowhere at scale as anything truly revolutionary.