The slow collapse of critical thinking in OSINT due to AI

> Participants weren’t lazy. They were experienced professionals. But when the tool responded quickly, confidently, and clearly they stopped doing the hard part.

This seems contradictory to me. I suspect most experienced professionals start with the premise that the LLM is untrustworthy due to its nature. If they didn't research the tool and its limitations, that's lazy. At some point, they stopped believing in this limitation and offloaded more of their thinking to it. Why did they stop? I can't think of a single reason other than being lazy. I don't accept the premise that it's because the tool responded quickly, confidently, and clearly. It did that the first 100 times they used it when they were probably still skeptical.

Am I missing something?

> I suspect most experienced professionals start with the premise that the LLM is untrustworthy due to its nature.

Most people don't actually critically evaluate LLMs for what they are, and actually buy into the hype that it's a super-intelligence.