> If LLMs are so good that you no longer have use for the skill, why do we care about skill atrophy? That skill isn't that useful to most people. There are so many examples of this in human history where it was completely fine and we went on to do higher order things that were more useful.

Because the LLMs actually aren't that good, so humans are expected to monitor them using the skills they no longer have the opportunity to develop and maintain.

The OP talked about that. Did you miss it?

> If this (first order effect) is actually a problem then it follows that we will naturally exercise our skill of detecting good change (second order effect) from bad ones and the skill will not atrophy? (third order effect).

You're ignoring the anti-human psychological factors: humans are bad at continuously monitoring for occasional errors. The tendency will be to adopt a complacent attitude, default allow. It's not a good environment for developing a skill, compared to actually actively using it.

> Because the LLMs actually aren't that good, so humans are expected to monitor them using the skills they no longer have the opportunity to develop and maintain

If humans are expected to monitor them using the skill then obviously they are still practicing the skill and the skill is developed and maintained. Help me understand why it is so difficult for everybody with this opinion to take a another step into their premise?

> humans are bad at continuously monitoring for occasional errors

Let's assume this is true for sake of discussion: That's the job, pre-llm or not. Air traffic control? occasional errors. Software bugs? occasional errors. Department of homeland security? occasional threats

If it's hard and required that we handle the issue, then it's a skill that people will naturally exercise and the skill therefore won't atrophy.

If your argument was true we'd have swarms of people doing accounting by hand instead of using accounting tools because you're worried that the accountants will atrophy their ability to audit the output of the tools.

That's not how it works in the real world and we have plenty of examples of it...

But sure, if your argument simply boils down to "this time...it's different" like the author is arguing, then let's leave it at that. There's no value in discussing it further just like there was no value in the original post. It was just mindless slop to promote "standup for me" which is also something that falls under the category of: "things that are no longer relevant because of llms"