@thomasfuchs They don't necessarily need to. In some contexts, the promise (which may or may not work) is that they can be used to replace expensive human experts with cheaper "proofreader" roles. Instead of solving interesting technical problems, the human's role degrades to verifying that the LLM didn't screw it up.
And in some contexts, that latter part can be at least partially done using non-LLM software. (Eg. formal verification tools in programming.)
@thomasfuchs The former part of this was *exactly* what the Hollywood writers went on strike over. They *absolutely didn't* want that to happen to their trade.
(Both because of the pay cut, and the likelihood that they'd end up rewriting the whole thing from scratch anyway - but also because even when it *does* work, they didn't want to cede the *creative* part of their job to LLMs, leaving them only with drudgery.)