Using LLMs as a critic/red teamer is great in theory, but economically is not that more useful, doesnt save that much time, if anything, it increases the time because you might uncover more errors or think about your work more. Which is amazing if you value quality work and you have learnt to think. Unfortunately, all the VC money is pushing the opposite, using LLMs to just do mediocre work. No point of critiquing anything if your job is to output some slop from bullet points, pass it along to the reader/recipient who also uses LLms to boil your slop down back to bullet points and pass it again etc. Even mentally, it's much more enticing or addicting to use LLMs for everything if you don't' care about the output of your work, and let your brain atrophy.

I also see this in a lot of undergrads i work with. The top 10% is even better with LLMs, they know much more and they are more productive. But the rest have just resulted to turning in clear slop with no care. I still have not read a good solution on how to incentivize/restrict the use of LLms in both academia or at work correctly. Which i suspect is just the old reality of quality work is not desirable by the vast majority, and LLMs are just magnifying this

> The top 10% is even better with LLMs, they know much more and they are more productive. But the rest have just resulted to turning in clear slop with no care.

This is interesting, I'm noticing something similar (even taking LLMs out of the equation). I don't teach, but I've been coaching students for math competitions, and I feel like there's a pattern where the top few% is significantly stronger than, say, 10 years ago, but the median is weaker. Not sure why, or whether this is even real to begin with.

Fail them enough and it will sink in I'm sure.