I remember this was brought up about a month or so on HN, in the context of describing how one person's experience using LLMs can be so vastly different than another person's:
"LLMs seem good at things you are not good at."
So, if you've never touched PVC before, LLM sounds plausibly competent--it may actually be or it may not be, but you'll walk away from it thinking you learned something. If you are a professional plumber and ask an LLM the same thing, the output will more look flawed and possibly dangerous.
Same for software writing: If you're not a good software developer, you probably think an LLM is great and writes much better code faster than a human developer can. But if you are a good software developer, LLM output is slop and requires huge rework to be passable.
"LLMs seem good at things you are not good at."
So, if you've never touched PVC before, LLM sounds plausibly competent--it may actually be or it may not be, but you'll walk away from it thinking you learned something. If you are a professional plumber and ask an LLM the same thing, the output will more look flawed and possibly dangerous.
Same for software writing: If you're not a good software developer, you probably think an LLM is great and writes much better code faster than a human developer can. But if you are a good software developer, LLM output is slop and requires huge rework to be passable.