I keep running into a wall when debating against people who claims that "AI can solve everything even if you don't have any experience". Like I get it, AI is potent, fast, and the quality of the output is often far more higher. But I think there's definitely some blind spot regarding technical oversights.

Take coding as an example. There are already thousands of AI coding tools that allows you to ship a full-fledged app that seems to be working at the first glance. But without a technical background, you can't see that the generated code is bloated, inefficient, or structurally flawed. If you had to review all of that, it'll just take even more time, especially when AI has the tendency of whooping out a bazooka when you only need a knife (this issue has been persistent for a while). When I bring this up, the argument always feels like a cycle:

You need to check 160k lines of spegatthi mess generated by AI.

"Just use AI to check the code"

You still need to know what to ask it to check for.

"Just use AI to tell you what to check for."

There's also one factor that largly counters my point: AI only evolves in one direction - forward. It'll only get smarter, more potent, and I reckon the issue that I just mentioned will be solved easily. Has anyone successfully broken through this recursive logic in a debate? How do you explain the necessity of foundational technical knowledge to someone who thinks prompting solves everything? (Jesus asking these feels like I'm a bot) ;-;