The car analogy doesn't work because you're not the one making the code/driving the car. It drives itself, and you sometimes can propose some directions for it to steer.
The problems with llm aren't just that sometimes your shit doesn't work or obviously bad, that's what you're talking about, and that's what minimally responsible sloperators can catch. The main problem is it writes something that looks OK to a human (that's a criteria for it) but sometimes it's unexpectedly idiotic in random places (because not being idiotic wasn't a criteria). You need to check way more thoroughly for it, and you can't use normal shortcuts that help you with it. So you obviously don't do that.

Maybe I have some ridiculously high standard, but whenever I used it, I wasn't happy with what it generated.

I noticed that the time it did it + the time for me to review it and possibly fixed was at best the same amount of time it took me to write, at worst it was longer.

For hard problems that I stumbled on it was useless.

For simple problems it worked and produced good code, but it still took less time for me to write it than waiting for Claude to finish thinking.

Everyone swears that they can produce good code with LLM and it is others who are bad, and LLM is force multiplier to them. But from what I see the only time it can speed up their work is if they never review it or even take time to understand the actual problem they are trying to solve.