The issue is the LLM can often design thing superior to anything you can do. Now this isn't always the case but it is often the case. By limiting yourself to code only YOU design you are cutting off a major portion of of AI capabilities that is highly leverage-able.
The pace of AI is literally changing so fast that we can't keep up. Your strategy here was probably true around 3 to 4 months ago. Right now it's no longer true. Not many people understand navier stokes and that's what AI can offer, it can offer some superior problem solving methodology with the level of complexity of navier stokes that you have no hope of understanding without years of study and education to get yourself up that level.
This is not a trivial question with a trivial answer.
Unfortunately your answer is outdated. I think if trendlines continue, the answer is trending violently towards putting more and more trust towards AI.
Compute is finite but human stupidity is limitless. You can ask AI to do something unimaginably stupid and it will spend its full capacity trying to satisfy your stupid request, which may not even be possible.
For those of us with practical budgets not measured in the millions, that bar for stupidity is pretty damn low, and I’m not convinced that there’s enough compute being built to account for every idiot in the world.
What does human stupidity have to do with this? If you're too stupid to ask it a good prompt then you're probably too stupid to design something for it to do.
I'm saying ask the AI something beyond your intellectual capabilities. Or ask it something beyond your intrinsic knowledge base. It can produce a working machine that does the job, but you won't be able to understand it.
You can still verify the machine works by using the machine... but you won't necessarily understand it. Similar to how you own a smartphone... you know it works, but you will never fully understand everything about it.