I'm not sure what your circumstances are but even if it's not true for you, it's true for many other people.
People online with identical views to them all assure me that theyre all highly skilled though.
Meanwhile I've been experimenting using AI for shopping and all of them so far are horrendous. Cant handle basic queries without tripping over themselves.
But you can understand why all the 1700 and below chess players say it is good and it is making them better using it for eval?
Don't worry, AI will replace you one day, you are just smarter than most of us so you don't see it yet.
This kind of thinking is actually a big reason why execs are being misinformed into overestimating LLM abilities.
LLM coding agents alone are not good enough to replace any single developer. They only make a developer x% faster. That dev who is now x% faster may then allow you to lay off another dev. That is a subtle yet critical difference.
To adress your point, let's try another one analogy. Imagine secreterial assistants, discussing their risk of been replaced by computers in the 80s. They would think: someone still need to type those letters, sit next to that phone and make those appointments, I am safe. Computers won't replace me.
It is not that AI will do all of your tasks and replace you. It is that your role as a specialist in software development won't be necessary most of the time (someone will do that, and that person won't call themselves a programmer).
I tend to find that the volume of automation predictions inversely correlates to how real they are.
When capitalists actually have the automation tech they dont shout about it they just do it quietly and collect the profits.
When, say, Bezos is worried about his unionizing workforce and wants to intimidate - that's when the hot takes and splashy media articles about billions invested in automation "coming for yer jerb" you read about get published.
For me the main difference is now some people can explain what their code does. While some other only what it wants to achieve
This is an interesting choice for a first experiment. I wouldn't personally base AI's utility for all other things on its utility for shopping.
Most people dont really understand coding but shopping is a far simpler task and so it's easier to see how and where it fails (i.e. with even mildly complex instructions).
Im very confident the experts in every field are not all that impressed by LLMs, relative of course, to those who were 'meh' in the first place. Experts meaning those who actually understand the content, not simply regurgitate or repeat it on demand.
I'd even go as far as to say there are many out there who have a feeling of disdain of the experts and want to see LLMs flourish because of this.