Yes, a subject matter expert who uses their domain experience to word the prompt correctly, incorporate tacit knowledge and relevant sources, ask follow-up questions, and judge the LLM-generated responses for relevance and correctness is not taking a shortcut. They're using a tool to provide a better and faster answer than they would have been able to otherwise. It's a matter of how the tool is used and maybe the optics around how the response is communicated, but relaying Claude's final answer is not inherently the wrong thing to do.

> relaying Claude's final answer is not inherently the wrong thing to do.

But it's very poor communication, and (to a whole lot of people) comes off as dismissive and unhelpful. It's better to hear from the subject-matter expert than from genAI directly.

The problem is that I don't know if that work has been done. In the cases where it has not been done, it is expensive for me to parse+trust the output. In my limited experience the work is often not been done, and given the cost to me of consuming low effort AI output, leads me to discount anything looking like AI output.

Unfortunately its not about the tool, its about trust. It takes little to destroy that trust, and without it we are denied the possible benefits from the tool.