I figure my experience might be uncommon here so I'll offer it: None, no, none, no, no.
Then I again tried Claude Code and OpenCode with a local (due to work I cannot use anything else, moreover wouldn't want to either) Qwen3.8 and behold: my current stance now is that _not_ using something like that, if you can, is missing out on a great tool.
And maybe it's because of the way I use it (in essence: to take care of what is the slowest bit of the process for me which is the typing and the find/replace and other repetitive stuff), but I really cannot come up with any sane reason not to use it.
A few weeks ago something clicked between Claude Code getting better and my expectations about what it can and can't do becoming more realistic. Now I happily use it for code generation, rubber duck debugging, search tasks (in the code, in git history, in logs, across repos, in our ticketing system, etc) and for rote tasks such as opening PRs.
Still not a fan of vibe coding or doing ten tasks in parallel or generally overly relying on these tools but I do get a lot of extra value in my day-to-day work.
I guess you can find sane reasons not to use LLMs outside the purely technical realm when you consider the economics and ethics of how the sausage is made...
Even if I wouldn't use it to write actual code, the value "now review this" currently brings is really quite large. It finds real issues to straight up bugs in any decently sized codebase which has only been reviewed by a couple of people. It's humbling at times.
Still not a fan of vibe coding or doing ten tasks in parallel or generally overly relying on these tools
Me neither and I probably never will be. It also just doesn't match how I usually write code. For anything which matters I'm a 'one statement at a time and consider all possible consequences' type of person.
I guess you can find sane reasons not to use LLMs outside the purely technical realm when you consider the economics and ethics of how the sausage is made...
It's definitely a 'pick your battles' kind of thing.