> The problem is that human beings are far more likely to know what they don't know.

I’ve spent a career dealing with the complete opposite. People with egos who can just not bare to admit when they don’t know and will instead just dribble absolute shit just as confidently as an LLM does until you challenge them enough that they just decide to pretend the conversation never happened.

It’s why I, someone fairly mediocre have been able to excel because despite not being the smartest person in the room, I can at least sniff bullshit.

Yeah sure, some people do this. But average humans understand the limit of their knowledge. LLMs cannot do that. You can find the right person for a space where this knowledge of limitations is necessary. Can't find an LLM which does that

I will grant you that there are at least some of us capable of this, where you’ll find no LLM capable.

> average humans understand the limit of their knowledge.

We’ll have to agree to disagree here. I’d call it a minority, not the average.

Which is why we live in a world where huge numbers of people think they know significantly more than they do and why you will find them arguing that they know more than experts in their fields. IT workers are particularly susceptible to this.

I can accept what you're saying, while knowing the exact measure of how many people truly know their limits is unknown, but at least it is nonzero

I don't believe that's true at all. LLMs, especially reasoning models, tend to be quite good at calling out gaps in their knowledge and understanding.

LLMs also don't have the ego, arrogance and biases of humans.

If you know what an LLM is and how it is trained you'll know that it fundamentally cannot know where its gaps in understanding and knowledge are