If we are just talking about writing code, I believe LLMs are indeed better than the median programmer already. Where they fail, however, is in the tasks that require proper reasoning.
At a micro-scale, you can simulate reasoning with token prediction, but I think this breaks at a higher-level (e.g. architecture.)
I believe that, given enough complexity, a purely vibe-coded project will always reach a point where each new feature breaks five other ones. So qualms about "maintainability" are important.
Maybe we'll reach the point where LLMs can deal with the complexity of most codebases without human guidance.
But it doesn't change the fact that this limitation is inherent to LLMs: chain of thought is not reasoning, only the illusion of it.
> And then I saw that with guidance and a critical eye, reasonably good specs, guardrails, it performed just as well and sometimes more throroughly than me
Right, and the important part here is that it did so with your guidance and taste, which have both been honed by years of experience.