We must give this fallacy a name. It’s the facile way out of the argument used by boosters whenever one dares to criticize LLMs.

> The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?”

If AI really is at human level quality/error rate (I don't think it is for general tasks, but there are some areas where it is), then the answer is typically cost and speed/capacity.

The entire purpose of automation is to remove a capacity limited human from a continuous workflow because the workflow is more capably achieved with fewer errors than the human

See: traffic lights