I do this as well and, anecdotally, I do get better results this way and better than my coworkers who are more terse and explicit. The conversations can become a bit sprawling though, so I also aggressively clear context
This statement is definitely just marketing hype, but if we're being pedantic there are tons of questions that are hard to answer but have easy to verify solutions, e.g. all NP-complete problems.
No. I also wouldn’t use a hammer to cut a board in half - I’d grab a saw. Knowing how to pick the right tool is a fundamental part of being a good engineer. Sometimes 70% is unacceptable, sometimes it’s exceptional. LLMs are incredible technology, but also just another tool in the toolbox. Use them where they fit, not where they don’t.
It might not fit your work, but there are tons of areas where “good enough” can still provide a lot of value. I’m sure you’d be thrilled with a tool that could correctly tell you if Apple’s stock was going up or down tomorrow 70% of the time.
While Australia does take things too far, I’m actually on their side here. Driving has been too normalized. You’re operating a 2 ton chunk of metal at 60+ mph inches away from other people. Australia has far fewer pedestrian deaths per capita than the US does, and enforcing a higher skill bar for more difficult situations must be part of that.
I wonder if there’s a combined metric that could be calculated. Depth of the line certainly would be impactful. A line that only works if you do 5 only moves is harder to find than a single move line. “Quiet” moves are probably harder to find than captures or direct attacks. Backwards moves are famously tricky to spot. Etc