@ludicity i'm a bit worried about confirmation bias here, though of course incompetence has existed and will continue to exist. the difference between a competent and incompetent engineer isn't decided by the tools that they have access to but the time they choose / are afforded to develop competency and how well they have learned-to-learn.

that said, while there isn't a quantitative difference in incompetence engineers, there is a qualitative difference in incompetent engineering. expensive AI licenses move wealth from labour to capital and give management hacks a license to demand specific things from engineers at a specific rate. some of the heaviest AI users ive seen are the junior enggs and interns, and while they werent able to answer questions about what they wrote pre-LLMs either, now it's buried in an amount of noise and unaccountability that makes it hard to catch these pitfalls during code reviews.

LLMs dont make people incompetent the moment you touch them. they change the amount of code, plausibly functional code mind you, that you can create in a given amount of time. this reduces the amount of time seniors can spend in design, reviewing, and talent building, and hinders the processes that (sometimes) build competence out of incompetence. i'm not a full-time-hater of LLMs, but i do worry about the real damage they do to enterprise engineering processes moreso than the engineers themselves.