> and most devs I’d imagine
What an awful imagination. Yes there are people who don't like CSS but are forced to use it by their job so they don't learn it properly, and that's why they think CSS is rote memorization.
But overall I agree with you that if a company is too cheap to hire a person who is actually skilled at CSS, it is still better to hoist that CSS job onto LLMs than an unwilling human. Because that unwilling human is not going to learn CSS well and won't enjoy writing CSS.
On the other hand, if the company is willing to hire someone who's actually good, LLMs can't compare. It's basically the old argument of LLMs only being able to replace less good developers. In this case, you admitted that you are not good at CSS and LLMs are better than you at CSS. It's not task-dependent it's skill-dependent.
Hum... I imagine LLMs are better than every developer on getting CSS keywords right like the GP pointed. And I expect every LLM to be slightly worse than most classical autocompletes.
Getting CSS keywords right is not the actual point of writing CSS. And you can have a linter that helps you in that regards. The endgame of writing CSS is to style an HTML page according to the specifications of a design. Which can be as detailed as a figma file or as flimsy as a drawing on a whiteboard.
This is like saying that LLMs are better at knowing the name of that one obscure API. It's not wrong, but it's also not the hard part about CSS
The LLM outputs good enough CSS, but is (way) cheaper than someone who's actually good at CSS.