Or simply use LLMs that struggle at writing good code (GPT, Gemini Pro, etc).
You need to be in the shoes of a product owner, and be able to express your requirements clearly and drive the LLM in your direction, and this requires to learn new skills (like kids learn how to use search engines).
I love how one side of this debate seems to have embraced "No True Scotsman" as the preferred argument strategy. Anyone who points out that these things have practical limitations gets a litany of "oh you aren't using it right" or "oh, you just aren't using the cool model" in response. It reminds me of the hipsters in SF who always felt your music was a little too last week.
As someone who is currently using these every day, Gemini Pro is right up there with the very best models for writing code -- and "GPT" is not a single thing -- so I have no idea what you're talking about. These things have practical limitations.
* Yes there are some truly unhinged boosters and CEOs out there that think they’re going to replace their entire support staff with chat models tomorrow. They’re wrong and the best thing we can do to discourage that is make it painful and hold them to the promises their AI makes, even if it means they need to give away a year of free flights because the chat bot said they would.
** corollary to the above note, plenty of the negative articles / experiences are also just exploring the real limitations and reporting on them. But the internet is the internet and as always it’s the extremes that get amplified and make for the biggest clicks. It is frustrating that even in spaces like HN where you might expect more nuanced discussion a lot of the discussion seems to fall into the extreme booster/detractor headlines and re-hashes of those positions (and strawmen of both) rather than interesting explorations of the extents and limits. I suppose you just can’t really have a good nuanced discussion with you and a thousand of your closest friends.
As still the default for GitHub Copilot GPT doesn't seem to "struggle" at all with writing good code. Anecdotally, in comparison with GPT, Claude seems woefully under-trained in areas such as PowerShell and cross-platform solutions compared to GPT. (Which also seems to show directly in Claude Code's awful cross-platform support. If Claude is so good why doesn't it fix Claude Code's Windows support? Add more PowerShell support instead of just bashing out bash-isms?)
A lot of impressions of the LLMs are hugely subjective, and I'm inclined to the above poster's suggestion a lot of of what you get out of an LLM is a reflection of who you are and what you put in to the LLM. (They are massively optimized GIGO machines after all.)