That's definitely a part of it. I still think that the skills involved in getting ideal output from an LLM isn't that different from communicating tasks to hum

That's definitely a part of it. I still think that the skills involved in getting ideal output from an LLM isn't that different from communicating tasks to human beings, and that people are worse at that form of communication than they realize. I'm a software engineer, so I work with people who focus on efficiently communicating data between systems, but interpersonal communication is still a recurring issue that leads to problems festering. I'm not saying I'm a brilliant communicator, but that it's common for people to underestimate how much base information there needs to be for someone else to understand the nature of a task, and to overestimate the knowledge of other engineers. Outside of engineering, people seem to default to believing that, if something is "intelligent", said thing should understand one's individual desire in succinct and broken English. If an AI gets things wrong then it's stupid and useless, even though we don't actually apply that same rigor to human beings. Getting facts wrong may be a fundamental aspect of intelligence, and the common view of intelligence may be incorrect and counterproductive. In essence, AI highlights our own flaws.