I generally fall into the first camp, too, but the code that AI produces is problematic because it's code that will stop working
in an unrecoverable way after some number of changes. That's what happened in the Anthropic C compiler experiment (they ended up with a codebase that wasn't working and couldn't be fixed), and that's what happens once every 3-5 changes I see Codex making in my own codebase. I think, if I had let that code in, the project would have been destroyed in another 10 or so changes, in the sense that it would be impossible to fix a bug without creating another. We're not talking style or elegance here. We're talking ticking time bombs.
I think that the real two camps here are those who haven't carefully - and I mean really carefully - reviewed the code the agents write and haven't put their process under some real stress test vs those who have. Obviously, people who don't look for the time bombs naturally think everything is fine. That's how time bombs work.
I can make this more concrete. The program wants to depend on some invariant, say that a particular list is always sorted, and the code maintains it by always inserting elements in the right place in the list. Other code that needs to search for an element depends on that invariant. Then it turns out that under some conditions - due to concurrency, say - an element is inserted in the wrong place and the list isn't sorted, so one of the places that tries to find an element in the list fails to find it. At that point, it's a coin toss of whether the agent will fix the insertion or the search. If it fixes the search, the bug is still there for all the other consumers of the list, but the testing didn't catch that. Then what happens is that, with further changes, depending on their scope, you find that some new code depends on the intended invariant and some doesn't. After several such splits and several failed invariants, the program ends up in a place that nothing can be done to fix a bug. If the project is "done" before that happens - you're in luck; if not, you're in deep, deep trouble. But right up until that point, unless you very carefully review the code (because the agents are really good at making code seem reasonable under cursory scrutiny), you think everything is fine. Unless you go looking for cracks, every building seems stable until some catastrophic failure, and AI-generated code is full of cracks that are just waiting for the right weight distribution to break open and collapse.
So it sounds to me that the people you think are in the first camp not only just care how the building is built as long as it doesn't collapse, but also believe that if it hasn't collapsed yet it must be stable. The first part is, indeed, a matter of perspective, but the second part is just wrong (not just in principle but also when you actually see the AI's full-of-cracks code).