That can become an issue but IMO the person in your example used the tool wrong. To use it to write the boilerplate for you, MVP, see how the libraries should be used sets one on the track. But that track should be used to start messing with it and understand why what goes where. LLM for code used as replacement is misuse. Used as time booster is good. Unless you completely don’t want to learn it, just have something that works. But that assumption broke in your example the moment they decided to add something to it
I have a very “on hands” way of learning things. I had in the past situations when I read whole documentation for a library back to back but in the end I had to copy something that somehow works and keep breaking it and fixing it to understand how it works. The part between documentation to MVP wasn’t easier because I’ve read the documentation
For such kinds of learning, having an LLM create something that works is a great speed up. In theory a tutorial might help in such cases. But it has to exist and very often I want something like this but… can mean that one is exploring direction that won’t address their use-case
EDIT: A thought experiment. If I go to fiverr asking for a project, then for another one, and then start smashing them together the problem is not in what the freelancers did. It’s in me not knowing what I’m doing. But if I can have a 100 line boilerplate file that only needs a little tinkering generated from a few sentences of text, that’s a great speed up