That's the Clever Hans argument, and the fact that you confidently use this unfalsifiable tactic ("Give it just the right context and it understands stuff!! It works!!" (Well, until the next iteration and then the next until the system paints itself into a corner)) tells me you are engaging in broscience / pseudoscience. Like I say, anti-scientific attitudes like yours are part of the problem, fanning the hype. It's bad faith to attribute people's criticisms of LLMs as some kind of lack of skill. People on here, many who are actual scientists and professional programmers, are very intelligent and highly trained, if they wanted to play around with LLMs they very likely capable of getting impressive one-time results, but proper, sustained use in a non-"vibe-coding" manner, such as with guarantees for validity, consistency, replicability, extensibility, and so forth is a completely open problem. Therefore it is out of proportion to reduce that to human skill. It's analogous to framing a bad design pattern as user error--disingenuous and bad faith. Ironically, with an intellectual standard like that, it then becomes easy to become overconfident about LLMs.