It seems like you trust AI more than people and prefer it to direct human interaction. That seems to be satisfying a need for you that most people don't have.
This feels identical to when I was an early "smart phone" user w/my palm pilot. People would condescend saying they didn't understand why I was "on it all the time". A decade or two later, I'm the one trying to get others to put down their phones during meetings.
My take? Those who aren't using AI continually currently are simply later adopters of AI. Give it a few years - or at most a decade - and the idea of NOT asking 100+ AI queries per day (or per hour) will seem positively quaint.
I don't think you're wrong, I just think a future in which it's all but physically and socially impossible to have a single thought or communication not mediated by software is fucking terrifying.
LLMs are infinitely patient, don't think I am dumb for asking certain things, consider all the information I feed them, are available whenever I need them, have a wide range of expertise, and are dirt cheap compared to professionals.
That they might hallucinate is not a blocker most of the time. If the information I require is critical, I can always double check with my own research or with professionals (in which case the LLM has already primed me with a basic mental model so that I can ask quick, short, targeted questions, which saves the both of us time, and me money). For everything else (such as my curiocity on why TCM works, or the correct spelling of a word), LLMs are good enough.
Have you never seen knowledgeable people get things wrong, and having to verify them?
Did you miss the part where they cost money, and I better come in as prepared as possible?
I really don't get these knee-jerk averse reactions. Are people deliberately reading past my assertions that I double check LLM outputs for everything critical?
We don't know that. They could be laughing their ass off at you without telling you.