As for correctness, they mentioned the LLM citing links that the person can verify. So there is some protection at that level.

But, also, the threshold of things we manage ourselves versus when we look to others is constantly moving as technology advances and things change. We're always making risk tradeoff decisions measuring the probability we get sued or some harm comes to us versus trusting that we can handle some tasks ourselves. For example, most people do not have attorneys review their lease agreements or job offers, unless they have a specific circumstance that warrants they do so.

The line will move, as technology gives people the tools to become better at handling the more mundane things themselves.

But if you dont know anything about programming a link to a library/etc is not so useful. Same if you dont know about tax law and it cities the tax code and how it should be understood (the code is correct but the interpretation is not)

If it’s also returning links, wouldn’t it be faster and more authoritative to just go read the official links and skip the LLM slop entirely?

No. The LLM in the story found the necessary links. In this case the LLM was a better search engine.

Sure. But often you don’t know how to find the information or what are the right technical terms for your problem.

In a more general sense sometimes, but not always, it is easier to verify something than to come up with it at the first place.

I think in many cases, chatbots may make information accessible to people who otherwise wouldn't have it, like in the OP's case. But I'm more sceptical it's replacing experts in specialize subjects that had been previously making a living at them. They would be serving different markets.

I was looking to compute how much I can retroactively claim this year for a deduction I did not claim earlier. The LLM response pointed me to the tax office's calculator for doing exactly this, and I already knew the values of all the inputs the calculator wanted. So, yes, I'm confident it's correct.