However, assuming we are still having this conversation, that alone is proof to me that the AI is not that capable. We're several years into "replace all devs in six months." We will have to continue wait and see it try and do.
This. The dev's outcompeting by using AI today are too busy shipping, rather than wasting time writing blog posts about what ultimately, is a skill-issue.
IDEs outperform any “dumb” editor in full context of work. You don’t see any less posts about “I use Vim, btw” (and I say this as Vim user).
Compare to a hand saw. You still see them in specialty work and hobby shops, but you don't see them on construction sites. You see circular saws. Same with hammers. You'll probably still see them in job sites, but with far less usage than nail guns. And in many contexts nail guns have completely replaced hammers. There are still people griping about power tools but the industry doesn't care. I know a fair number of people in the trades and I can't imagine any of them seriously suggesting that you don't need to know how to use power tools.
My argument is that, assuming AI fulfills the expectation of those who hype it (and that assumption has yet to be proven), we will see a similar effect in software. The results will speak for themselves and make the arguments irrelevant. That hasn't happened yet, leaving room for genuine debate.
Eventually: well, but, the AI coding agent isn't better than a top 10%/5%/1% software developer.
And it'll be that the coding agents can't do narrow X thing better than a top tier specialist at that thing.
The skeptics will forever move the goal posts.