Some of this seems a bit overhyped.

I like CLI tools with json output that can be piped through jq. I've seen llms do that with existing tools.

The human needs and llm needs seem to overlap, especially if the human is using scripts and piping between tools.

The number of times it implies you didn't need to validate "human" input until llms arrived is scary too.

I'm also surprised to hear them say llms shouldn't Google, as that seems an area that Google themselves could optimize their search service for their llms and get an advantage.

Finally, I wonder if just using older, smaller llms is a valid fuzzing approach for clis (or anything else llms might be controlling). Or do you need a high powered llm trained to generate adversarial input?

> The number of times it implies you didn't need to validate "human" input until llms arrived is scary too.

I took away a completely different message: humans and LLMs make different mistakes that require different validation.