[brokensegue]

I interpreted the op's argument to be that

> For simple tasks where we would alternatively hire only ordinary humans AIs have similar error rates.

Yes if a task requires deep expertise or great care the AI is a bad choice. But lots of tasks don't. And in those kinds of tasks even ordinary humans are already too expensive to be economically viable

[mdp2021]

Sorry for the delay. If you are still there:

> But lots of tasks

Do you have good examples of tasks in which dubious verbal prompt could be an acceptable outcome?

By the way, I noticed:

> AI

Do not confuse LLMs with general AI. Notably, general AI was also implemented in system where critical failures would be intolerable - i.e., made to be reliable, or part of a finally reliable process.

[brokensegue]

Yes lots of low importance tasks. E.g. assigning a provisional filename to an in progress document

Checking documents for compliance with a corporate style guide