I work in an environment where persuasion and synthesis of vast amounts of information gives a major edge. I see 2 types of people. There's those who are actually really good at what they do without help of LLM's who can benefit by making their output even better by use of AI, by honing and optimizing their work, and there's those who are absolutely shit without use of LLM's who're even worse once they start using it.

Unfortunately the latter group is the vast majority.

The first group already has strong ideas, and then the LLM can accelerate and elevate their thinking. They use it as a brainstorm helper. They validate the output. They don't necesarrily work faster.

The second group doesn't know what to do, will ask the LLM, trust the output with little to no scrutiny. They use it as a means of production. They deliver fast.

I think this pattern we see in most fields. Software development for example. A true senior developer might be able to create better output, or produce things a bit faster even. But a bad programmer will still have bad output, and probably exponentially so when they lean more into the tool.

The second group is dangerous. They're as delusional as the output the LLM's tend to generate. They feel empowered, and see the increase in output as a personal victory, as if it unlocked some lingering quality in them that was always there. Qualities that highly capable people had to work for years for to attain. Look how productive I am, look at what I did, they'll think. They create the noise that capable people have to now deal with, it's all the slop we see, and it's everywhere.

That's what I hate about it.

Anyway