I find it a lot more useful to dive into bugs involving multiple layers and versions of 3rd party dependencies. Deep issues where when I see the answer I completely understand what it did to find it and what the problem was (so in essence I wouldn't of learned anything diving deep into the issue), but it was able to do so in a much more efficient fashion than me referencing code across multiple commits on github, docs, etc...

This allows me to focus my attention on important learning endeavors, things I actually want to learn and are not forced to simply because a vendor was sloppy and introduced a bug in v3.4.1.3.

LLMS excel when you can give them a lot of relevant context and they behave like an intelligent search function.

Yes but that’s why you ask it to teach you what it just did. And then you fact-check with external resources on the side. That’s how learning works.

I would consider this a benefit. I've been a professional for 10 years and have successfully avoided CSS for all of it. Now I can do even more things and still successfully avoid it.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I know a little css and have zero desire or motivation to know more; the things I’d like done that need css just wouldn’t have been done without LLMs.

This exactly. My css designs have noticeably gotten better without me,the writer getting any better at all.

But were you trying to learn CSS in the first place?