One big concern I have with this is that the state of LLMs because of issues in where it can go horribly wrong, requires someone who is familiar with the subject to evaluate their output. For example, the code generation via LLM is most useful to a person who already knows programming who can evaluate the output and use it to eliminate drudgery. Previously, there was an article posted about using LLMs to generate pat…
Obviously, the use case matters. I'm not saying to give such a tool to someone who is mentally ill, or incapable of critical thought.
In general, I think expecting perfection from LLMs is unreasonable. If someone wants to learn to code, the second they have any interaction with an LLM about coding is the moment they begin to learn. I'm not sure about y'all, but a lot of times when I'm working a hard coding problem, I find myself going through confusion, frustration, interest, and then aggressiveness (anger+interest) to get through the challenge. I frequently tell people who are starting out coding that coding is one of those things that you have to get used "being confused about" to over time. You have to get used to creating problems for yourself, then coping with the feelings that come, and pushing through to a solution.
I do think you raise a profound point about ability to evaluate the fidelity. I would argue that some people will eventually develop critical thought to apply to the problem, but if we instead see a "digital tragedy of the commons" happening, things could go sideways pretty quickly.