> If everyone is using LLMs then nobody has advantage

LLMs are a tool like any other - and like any tool there will be people who are better at utilising the tool to achieve an outcome than other users of the tool.

Those differences typically come down to a combination of experience, in-depth understanding of your subject/objective and an awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the tool.

TBH the rise of LLMs reminds me a lot of the era when google search emerged. People's ability to utilise a search engine to achieve their aims was massively varied.

* Some people were absolutely useless - they struggled to use a search engine to find anything beyond the most basic of things.

* Others were ok - they'd be able to dig a little deeper, they knew a few of the tricks of the searching trade and they had a bit of an understanding of where to look/how to look for something obscure.

* Some were good - they knew all the key search constraints, they had a good understanding around how data is structured and what keywords and approaches to use when to get to the thing they need

* and some had 'google fu' - those people seemed to have a god-like ability to navigate the internet to find the most obscure things in a matter of seconds.

LLMs are different to search engines but their rise shares many similarities to them - they are changing the rules of the game in a monumental way; they have fundamentally reduced the barriers to entry in many fields.

The skills that made someone valuable in a pre LLM world do still matter, but IMO we're currently starting to go through a major change where the people who learn how to best utilise LLMs within their field will find themselves leapfrogging people with stronger skills who obstinately seek to avoid using the new tools becoming available to them.