I'm pretty skeptical of GPT/LLMs in general (I think they can be a fantastic tool, but I think their current abilities to generate creative solutions are wildly overblown even by a lot of people that should recognize their limitations better), but in response to this:

> If ChatGPT responses were enough to do a job, then why would a company hire a human?

By the same token if ChatGPT responses are enough to pass the interview, then how can you believe your interview process isn't fundamentally broken?

And if ChatGPT responses aren't enough to pass the interview, then who cares if people use them? If the interview properly models the job being hired for those candidates should either fail the interview or not depending upon their ability to leap back and forth between the tool and their own ability to make use of its output which should map very well to their ability to do the same in an actual work capacity.

> And corollary to that: if your job is possible to do with a huge number of AI tools, then your work is likely the menial kind and you should seriously dread being laid off and being obsoleted in the near future.

I bet you’re fun at parties. In all seriousness though, most IT work is menial and mundane. Backends are backends, front ends are front ends, and data moves between the two. People like to overcomplicate “tech” I think largely because of insecurity issues. Now that said, some emerging industries such as the budding corporate space race do require advanced technical knowledge. Yet for some reason glorified grocery apps want rocket engineers at their company when an average engineer could just muck around with mundane tools and piecemeal something together. The truth is the kind of gate keeping you’re advocating for is what limits businesses from realizing value quickly and is designed to artificially limit hiring.