This is a great question and the data points make a solid case.
I've been a "10xer" for 25 years. I've considered coding agents bullshit since my first encounter with Copilot. I work by having a clear mental map of every piece of my code and knowing exactly how everything works, to the smallest detail, and how it interacts with every other part.
Anyway, all that and a nickel. Yesterday I fired up Claude Code for the first time. I didn't ask it to build me a game or anything at a high level. Nor to evaluate an existing code base. No... I spent about 2 hours guiding it to create a front-end SPA framework that does what my own in-house SPA framework does on the front end, just to see how it would perform at that. I approved every request manually and interrupted every time I spotted a potential issue (which were many). I guided it on what functions to write and how they should affect the overall navigation flow, rendering flow, loading and error-handling.
In other words, I knew what I wanted to write to a T, because it's code I wrote in 2006 and have refactored and ported many times since then... about 370 commits worth to this basic artifact, give or take.
And it pretty much got there.
Would I have been able to prompt it to write a system like that if I hadn't written the system myself over and over again? Probably not. But it did discern the logical setup I was going for (which is not at all similar to what you're thinking if you're coming from React or another framework like that), and it wrote code that is almost identical in its control structures to what I wrote, without me having to do much besides tell it in plain English what should control what, how, when and in what order.
I'm still not convinced it would save me time on something totally new, that I didn't already know the final shape of.
But I do suspect that a reason all this "vibe coding" hasn't led to an explosion of vaporware is that "vibe coding" isn't being done by experienced coders. I suspect that if you're letting changes "flash across the screen" without reading them, that's most of the difference between a failed prompt and one that achieves the desired result.
Like, I saw it do things like create a factory class that took a string name and found the proper component to load. I said, "refactor that whole thing to a component definition interface with the name in it, make a static object of those and use that to determine what screen to load and all of its parameters." And it did, and it looked almost the same as what I wrote back in the day.
Idk. I would not want my job to become prompting an LLM. I like cracking my knuckles and writing code. But I think the mileage you get may be dictated by whether you are trying to use it as a general-purpose "make this for me" engine, for shovelware, in which case it will fail hard, versus whether you are using it as a stenographer translating a sentence of instructions into a block of control flow.