I'll set aside my objection to calling software development "coding" (10% of the job at best) ...
I guess AI-assisted coding (sounds like assisted living for the elderly) is replacing Stack Overflow "cut n paste" coding, where there was similar lack of attention to what people were copying. In the case of AI what is being generated/pasted comes from the training data, so perhaps "statistical paste coding" ? "hive mind coding" ?
"Hive mind coding" almost sounds like a good thing (leaning on the collective experience of the global software community - what could be better ?!), until you realize (e.g. as Fred Brooks describes in "Mythical Man Month") that any software project large enough to need multiple developers (or AI equivalent) needs a clear vision and an architect, lead, etc. 1M uncoordinated coding monkeys isn't going to cut it, even if they are all guided by a "hive mind" cookbook of what to write.
Maybe this is the real disconnect, or a large part of it, between benchmarks indicating super-human leetcode and competitive coding AI capability, and Google reporting 30% of software AI developed (= test cases?), and not hearing of much utility outside of these one-man projects or narrow "write me a test function" type things.