Because it's faster.

I've done this on different topics - I know the answer is in a particular eBook/PDF/document, but for whatever reason it's not trivial to look it up. The model can do it a lot more quickly than I can, and then I can still verify the accuracy.

I wonder how the ratios would change for papers at different parts of the review process. For what fraction of published papers are the authors unable to answer basic questions about them?

That sounds incredibly frustrating. It's bad enough in code reviews, but is that approach to work being tolerated in meetings these days?

They'd be hobbies in most utopian scenarios too.

The problem is that by default progress might look like an increase in power without a corresponding increase in safety. That could be catastrophically dangerous.

There are captchas that demand selfies now? I have never heard of that before and it sounds completely crazy.

For better or for worse, this technology isn't going away any more than search engines, smartphones, or social media have gone away.

These inventions all stopped disrupting the world and just became a part of it. The question is whether LLMs are going to just take their quiet place, or profoundly change (or eliminate) humanity in a self-feeding frenzy towards singularity.

Those technologies reached profitability relatively early, if not immediately.

I suppose one could believe that, though to me it seems like a very wild take. At least if you want the superintelligence to ever have any meaningful interaction with the outside world.

I read it as suggesting that AI models are simultaneously terrifyingly powerful and incompetent dunces.

no, it's the current administration, among others like musk.

That is also very fair.