The FUD about LLM's will never get old. The way I know and trust LLM's is the same way a manager would trust their reportees to do good work.

For most tasks, the complexity/time required to verify a task is << the time required to do the task itself. Sure there can be hallucinations on the graph that the LLM made. But LLMs are hallucinating much less than before. And the time to verify is much lower than the time required for a human to do the task.

I wrote a post detailing this argument https://simianwords.bearblog.dev/the-generation-vs-verificat...

FUD ? You are missing the point entierly, and so does your blog post

Are LLM a good dictionary of synonyms ? Perhaps, but is it relevant ? Not at all

Are you biased when a solution is presented to you ? Yes, like all humans.

Is it damageful when said solution is brain-dead ? Obsiously.

Are you failing to understand that most (if not all) manager's work is human centric and, as such, cannot be applied to a non-human ? Obviously ..

You trust a machine's intent. Joke's on you, it has no intent at all, it will breaking that "trust" your pour in it without even realizing-it

You say that LLM does better job than you. Perhaps this says it all ?