... to even only seriously consider doing that? These people are operating on the level of totally deranged cultists.

Only that it cannot do the "sophisticated" part. What it can do is "versatile in the hands of an expert". But that expert is very much non-optional and the requirements are really high.

You seem to be unaware that lots of people going into academic STEM programs get washed out. Having a background in the are before does not help that much. The difference is that academic STEM programs do the deep dives and that is where the students get separated into two groups. The second group them probably changes to business school.

My view of reality seems to be much, much clearer than yours. And no, the "you do not know what the state of the art is" claim just marks you as the asshole here.

That is the key problem. There needs to be a balance. But the "these people are powerful, so hands-off" approach is worse.

Yes. CEOs making corrupt tech decisions is a main reason Microsoft still exists.

Naa, thinking is now the computer's job! At least that is what these assholes are pushing. Obviously, that cannot work until we have AGI (and may not work even then).

Indeed. These claims that "coding is over" from AI being able to clone an existing solution are insightless on a really advanced level. Coding the solution is 10% of the work. Adding an unreliable tool like an LLM to the process does not make things better (as numerous organizations are finding). You may just lose the problem solvers that enjoy coding their solution as the final step though, because they will not accept a slop-machine taking that from them.

What I am also wonder is what happens when users think they need thing "A", vibe code (badly) an "A", but they actually need a "B". This is going to be a really impressive mess if done too often.

You did very strongly expose yourself as an incompetent. And now you are doubling down on it. The reaction to that is in no way surprising and entirely deserved.

Indeed. That is likely the reason so many "programmers" praise AI into high heaven. These are all those that actually have no clue what good programming looks like and they mistake what AI does for it. Actually good programmers (of which there are not a lot) come to a different evaluation.

It has always been like that. In fact, most of those claiming they want to hire critical thinkers actually are not critical thinkers themselves and do not want to hire any. Critical thinkers have always been rare, they are inconvenient, they tell you that you are doing things wrong. There are very few people that want to hire such people and these are critical thinkers themselves. But these people tend to get not promoted and eventually removed from an organization and hence the circle of mental incapability continues.

Here is another hint: Nobody that claims to be a "thought leader" or anything like it, is actually one.

The problem is that most people do not have critical thinking. To find whether a candidate has it, you need an interviewer that has it. At that point, it is a solved problem, critical thinkers can reliably identify critical thinkers. Only that most people think they are critical thinkers when they are really not, hence finding that respectively qualified interviewer is basically impossible.

At least not if you do them right. It seems this person has never done that. If you do these interviews right, you can find out how somebody approaches a problem, what motivates them and what they are good at.

On the other hand, this "story" may just be more "AI is great!"-type slop and essentially a lie.

Anyone who has enough development experience and dealt with the client facing side of it knows that the client never has a clue about the requirements. An important part of the job is, in polite terms, telling them how stupid their original set of requirements is and hammering out with them exactly what they actually need (that or just ignoring them, intuiting all of that, then just making the specific changes they want after you hand them a prototype). Basically, what we seem to be talking about here is turning the developers/engineers into the clueless clients who have no idea what the requirements should actually be anyway, and using the AI as a developer that just takes the requirements at face value.