People have said this about "no-code" tools for decades. It wasn't true for any of them, and I don't see how it is true now. These tools, from labview to copilot, have a 90% problem: they can get you about 90% of the way to a complete project, but without the last 10%, they are functionally useless unless you are an expert. That is very different than art, for example, which does not have the same kind of problem unless you are trying to do something that demands accuracy (like scientific illustration).
I have no idea how you would measure the accuracy of that 90%. The huge majority of no code solutions never get published - they just quietly tick away doing their thing in some corner of the business. The only ones you're really likely to hear about are the ones that aren't working or need modifying by an expert.
Maybe there's a parallel there, that 90% of no code projects do provide complete solutions and 10% are problematic
That's cool, but you're still a software engineer, and I bet you're doing plenty of work to debug those programs. Non-programmers don't know how to do that.
Your own example is not proof that this time it's different - this is just a no-code tool that you happen to gain productivity by using.
