This article’s argument is interesting because it relies on two very questionable principles: 1) That as tools get better, operator specialization is less usef

This article’s argument is interesting because it relies on two very questionable principles: 1) That as tools get better, operator specialization is less useful. I understand how this feels like it makes sense, because for for binary tasks like driving it’s true, but for creative tasks, I struggle to think of a single example where this is the case. Which leads to 2) Humans won’t figure out how to use these tools in increasingly complex/weird ways to create increasingly complex/weird outputs. I think in general, everyone has been so conditioned by the idea of singularity (which to be frank is a completely tangential concept to contemporary LLMs) that they refuse to see these things for what they are: tools built by humans to serve humans when operated by humans. Add as many layers of “self-prompting” as you want there, but a human still set the original intention and they will be the ones to judge the ultimate outputs.