There's a particular strawman response to the concerns that LLMs damage literacy, impair learning, etc that goes like "well people said the same thing about the calculator!" "Socrates said writing would make people dumb!" and the reason it's a shit take is it pretends that pedagogy just doesn't exist. We _do_ study the effect of various technologies and methods used in teaching. We _know_ that certain methods of teaching reading are ineffective and damaging, three-cueing for example.

It is in fact anti-science to believe that all concerns about new technologies and methods being damaging are automatically invalid, especially in the face of mounting evidence supporting those concerns.

"Giving money to J.K.Rowling is the same as giving money to eradicate transgender people. I'm sorry, but it's true."

allosaurusfragilis on tumblr

https://www.tumblr.com/allosaurusfragilis/812457516669747200/this-probably-isnt-going-to-change-peoples?source=share

I frequently see people praising LLMs for their ability to write loads of documentation (proposals, specs, tech docs), saving the author a ton of time and producing far more output and information than they would be able to otherwise.

What I almost never see is these people reporting that the audience for their writing has found the output valuable and of good quality.

Saying this as a member of that audience, who has had to rewrite/reinterpret nearly every LLM-created spec handed off to me.