If people are in charge of project management, and repeatedly fail to recognise poor ideas and instead pursue them to the detriment of productivity, then they probably shouldn't be managing that project.

All AI is doing here is rapidly identifying the people who have Peter-principled themselves.

> It's a lot easier for a human to organically have good ideas than to refute LLM-generated ideas that are a dead end.

What works better is when you can use an LLM to obtain a negative opinion on your own ideas that you think are good. LLMs aren't great at original thinking, but they're pretty good at finding the flaws in poorly thought-through human ideas.

This is certainly what I saw. I was at a company that was a very eager early adopter of GenAI for all work. One big thing that came out of it was a bunch of effort wasted on unprofitable projects.

The chatbots kept steering people toward uncreative ideas and overshadowing novel insights that might come from genuine domain expertise. AI generated meeting summaries became a force for miscommunication as they de-emphasized or even outright misrepresented what was really important about the conversation. And people became much worse at proving ideas out before making significant resource commitments thanks to effects that we now describe with terms like AI psychosis.

If you are getting deskilled using LLMs, it's your usage pattern that's to blame

The differentiation comes from the problem space being so enormous that differentiation is almost certainly going to happen.

What differentiation? Most work is bread-and-butter after you get a few years of experience. If you LLM's can automate 50% of that, it would transform society already.