If anything, LLMs have surprised at much better they are than humans in understanding instructions for text based activities. But they are MUCH worse than humans when it comes to creating images/videos.
That's demonstrateably false, as proven by both OpenAI's own research [1] and endless independent studies by now.
What is fascinating is how some people cling on false ideas about what LLM is and isnt.
Its a recurring fallacy that's bound to get it's own name any time soon.
Put it this way — I’m going to give you a text based question to solve and you have a choice to get another human to solve it (randomly selected from adults in the US) or ChatGPT, and both will be given 30 minutes to read and solve the problem — which would you choose?
You wouldn't randomly selected an arbitrary adult from the USA to do a brain surgery on you, so this argument is rabulistic.
But I do expect an arbitrary adult to be able to follow instructions.
Ok. How about you give me a text based task where you would pick the random adult over the LLM?
Do I want to use an LLM to do it from business owner perspective? Yeah probably it is cheaper and more convenient. Which one I want to use, depending the problem we are solving here right?
I'm more concern about the integrity of the current digital infrastructure. In that sense I would NOT trust ANY thing really important to anything digital, much less to LLM. Can I use it for exploration then require an actually human expert approval/edit. Absolutely!
As long as the digital doesn't result in significant physical or financial damage.
Edit: and for HN ppl, of course the LLM will have have to be open weight and all and run locally in a air gaped GPU, preferably in a Faraday cage.