Unless your single initial prompt includes instructions to deploy the result in production, and then you press <Enter> and never again revisit the conversation or its outcome, then I disagree. Because in normal case, even if you have LLM zero-shot something, you're still there as the final acceptance gate. You decide if it's good enough, or if it needs to be fixed.

This makes LLMs still tools, even if they're very good tools, and often can zero-shot solutions to simple problems. But just because you often take the `accept` branch the first time around, doesn't mean you're not in the loop.

> This makes LLMs still tools, even if they're very good tools, and often can zero-shot solutions to simple problems. But just because you often take the `accept` branch the first time around, doesn't mean you're not in the loop.

That, 100%. As Eliezer used to say, there are no little XML tags on atoms saying "these are molecules of a hammer", "a hammer's purpose is to drive nails". Purpose rests with us. We design things to afford some specific purpose, not determine it. I too have used plenty of things as hammers that were very much not intended for that purpose, and I used hammers for things they were not designed to do too.