Have you tried using AI only for things you already know for a while? I almost only do so (because I haven't found that LLMs speed up my actual process much) and I can tell you that the things that LLMs generally leave out/forget/don't "know" about are plentiful, they will result in tons of debugging and usually require me to "metagame" heavily and ask pointed questions that someone who didn't have my knowledge simply wouldn't know to ask in order to solve the issues with the code they generate. A LLM can't even give you basic OpenGL code in C for doing some basic framebuffer blitting without missing stuff that'll cost you potentially hours or a whole day in debugging time.

Add to this that someone who uses a LLM to "just do things" for them like this is very unlikely to have much useful knowledge and so can't really resolve these issues themselves it's a recipe for disaster and not at all a time saver over simply learning and doing yourself.

For what it's worth I've found that LLMs are pretty much only good for well understood basic theory that can give you a direction to look in and that's about it. I used to use GitHub Copilot (which years ago was (much?) better than Cursor with Claude Sonnet just a few months ago) to tab complete boilerplate and stuff but concluded that overall, I wasn't really saving time and energy because as nice as tab-completing boilerplate sometimes was, it also invariably turned into "It suggested something interesting, let's see if I can mold it into something useful" taking up valuable time, leading nowhere good in general and just generally being disruptive.

I don't think so.How can you be so sure it solves the 'unknown unknowns'?