I am going to argue that you do. Then I will be interested in your response, if you feel inclined.

We all have our idiosyncratically distributed areas of high intuition, expertise and fluency.

None of us need apprentice level help there, except to delegate something routine.

Lower quality ideas there would just gum things up.

And then we all have vast areas of increasingly lesser familiarity.

I find, that the more we grow our strong areas, the more those areas benefit with as efficient contact as possible with as many more other areas as possible. In both trivial and deeper ways.

The better developer I am, in terms of development skill, tool span, novel problem recognition and solution vision, the more often and valuable I find quick AI tutelage on other topics, trivial or non-trivial.

If you know a bright high school student highly familiar with a domain that you are not, but have reason to think that area might be helpful, don’t you think instant access to talk things over with that high schooler would be valuable?

Instant non-trivial answers, perspective and suggestions? With your context and motivations taken into account?

Multiplied by a million bright high school students over a million domains.

—

We can project the capability vector of these models onto one dimension, like “school level idea quality”. But lower dimension projections are literally shadows of the whole.

It if we use them in the direction of their total ability vector (and given they can iterate, it is actually a compounding eigenvector!) and their value goes way beyond “a human high schooler with ideas”.

It does take time to get the most out of a differently calibrated tool.

> And if the quality of the ideas is going to improve in future years, that's good too, but also not demonstrated here.

I don't quite understand the argument here. The future hasn't happened yet. What does it mean to demonstrate the future developments now?