It sounds like a fair criticism.

LLM is an issue (to most of us) when it replaces exploration, thinking and effort to aquire skill. Whether it's vibe-coding an app, or thinking through a math problem. Jury is out this will atually dimish the next generation of thinkers. But seems like a valid concern to me.

2. This particular case of LLM usage (to teach us photoshop) is replacing traditional tutorials. It can help people learn things. This is also valid to me.

The existence of 2, doesn't eliminate 1. Existence of 1 doesn't eliminate 2. There's no strawmans here. I also think it's fair that the promise of LLMs (and AIs), isn't to replace tutorials, but to displace and automate much more.

Statistics on cheating in schools and interviews?

The paradigm shift on how every medium+ size FOSSS repo needs to take in PR submission?

The increase in bot activity in social media/

Who's the ones saying this is actually creating higher quality products? No one talks about quality anymore: only speed.

Look at the marketing. "Complete projects", "Build apps". "Get advice". How often are we seeing "build a functioning workflow and validation pipeline and collaborate in incremental stages" or anything boring to that effect?

As someone who spent a lot of time supporting users and understanding their challenges with these tools, there's a lot of can you do X vs how can I do X, at least a 10x if not 100x difference.

IE: Model do this for me vs teach me.

Enough that I know people who have built businesses purely training people.

Anthropic themselves?