This is a special post for quick takes by Cole Wyeth. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
I don't see it that way. Broad and deep knowledge is as useful as ever, and LLMs are no substitutes for it.
This anecdote comes to mind:
[...]
This fits with my experience. If you're trying to do some nontrivial research or planning, you need to have a vast repository of high-quality mental models of diverse phenomena in your head, able to be retrieved in a split-second and immediately integrated into your thought process. If you need to go ask an LLM about something, this breaks the flow state, derails your trains of thought, and just takes dramatically more time. Not to mention unknown unknowns: how can you draw on an LLM's knowledge about X if you don't even know that X is a thing?
IMO, the usefulness of LLMs is in improving your ability to build broad and deep internal knowledge bases, rather than in substituting these internal knowledge bases.
5Cole Wyeth
This is probably right. Though perhaps one special case of my point remains correct: the value of a generalist as a member of a team may be somewhat reduced.
The value of a generalist with shallow knowledge is reduced, but you get a chance to become a generalist with relatively deep knowledge of many things. You already know the basics, so you can start the conversation with LLMs to learn more (and knowing the basics will help you figure out when the LLM hallucinates).