I think that is a bad argument.
You could ask a human to "do something with 1M dollars" and get garbage too.
You could ask a human to "do something with 1M dollars" and get garbage too.
It's no different than an editor standing between the author and a book, or a publisher, or a printing press. It's part of the process of idea realization, so it's just on that spectrum somewhere between book sale and author idea. (even though in another flipflop, that editor might be an author and now elevated to the premier deciding role). It's about how the tool fits, not what the tool is ultimately capable of.
So the analogy holds, just fine.
When it comes to unaligned agentic models that are left with a large amount of compute and a task, is they can wander off goal and do all kinds of things.
https://www.axios.com/2026/03/07/ai-agents-rome-model-crypto...
At this point in the game it's really difficult to nail down exactly what AI does or doesn't do. You're mostly getting "well behaved models" with filters in front of them, or models with less capability. On top of that the vast majority of us can't afford or don't have the hardware and power to burn away a few billion tokens to see what would happen.
At least the human's brain requires about 20 Watts to operate.
Cheap garbage is better than garbage requiring whole power plants nad billions of capital investment.
The idea that we'd have to justify the existence of humans relative to LLMs based on objective metrics sounds like it's leading in a bad direction. If the LLM gets their power budget down to nineteen watts, what does that mean for humans?