The blog post was chock full of factual errors, claimed to be based off project X but wasn't at all and even had the cheek to include that it was arguably the most secure way to deploy such a server, with their implementation apparently already being used by their team to serve real traffic. Meanwhile the repo was full of TODOs for all the security aspects of the protocol.
Of course after the backlash a lot of this was covered up so look at the archives if you are curious.
They have really done a disservice to themselves because their blog posts used to be excellent, but now I have to question whether it's another blogpost full of fakery like that one (and there was another since iirc). Given this blog post talks about reimplementing a popular project, it starts to give off the signs of being another one of these. Unfortunate if that's not the case
Is AI merely being used as a tool to aid the engineer? Because that's what I do. I use it as essentially a super-autocomplete. It typically only writes a couple lines at a time for me. On rare occasions, I can write a function signature and let it fill out the body. That's coding with AI.
Anything more than that though? You're stepping into coding by AI, which utterly fails at anything beyond an MVP. Once you go over 2,000 lines of code or so, it falls apart. It can't reason about anything with even a small amount of complexity, and every "bug fix" either fails to fix the bug or it introduces two more.