> It is indeed closing the skill gap and it does so by elevating the lower side of it. That's my "criticism", it's not closing the skill gap. Your skills haven

> It is indeed closing the skill gap and it does so by elevating the lower side of it. That's my "criticism", it's not closing the skill gap. Your skills haven't change, your output has. If you're using AI conservatively I'd say you're right, it can remove all the tedious work, which is great, but you'll still need to check that it's correct. I'm more and more coming to the idea that for e.g. some coding jobs, CoPilot, Claude, whatever can be pretty helpful. I don't need to write a generic API call, handle all the error codes and hook up messages to the user, the robot can do that. I'll check and validate the code anyway. Where I'm still not convinced is for communicating with other humans. Writing is hard, communication is worse. If you still have basic spelling errors, after decades of using a spellchecker, I doubt that your ability to communicate clearly will change even with an LLM helping you. Same with arts. If you can't draw, no amount of prompting is going to change that. Which is fine, if you only care about the output, but you still don't have the skills. My concern is the uncritical application of LLMs to all aspects of peoples daily life. If you can use an LLM to do your job faster, fine. If you can't do it without an LLM, you shouldn't be doing it with one.