There's a "purpose of a system", but there's also a purpose which we want that system to serve, and which prompts us to correct the system should it deviate from the goals we set for it.
That is a simplistic idea that I am scared has spread far and wide.
A system is a tool, it does have a use/purpose in the simplistic sense. But how we use the tool is ultimately the crux of the issue, for we can use that hammer to build houses or tear them down, or to build concentration camps or use it simply to injure someone directly.
No, the purpose of a tool/system is generally determined by the guiding philosophy of the user or society. Unfortunately society has replaced its philosophy (at least in America) with the economic system of capitalism; i.e. capitalism for capitalisms sake.
Thanks for saying it out loud. I meet a lot of people like you that think the same way as part of my job and they aren't willing to say it out loud.
It's about protecting your work, even if an LLM can do it better.
The only way an LLM can devalue your work is if it can do it better than you. And I don't just mean quality, I mean as a function of cost/quality/time.
Anyway, we can be enemies I don't care - I've been getting rid of roles that aren't useful anymore as much as I can. I do care that it affects them personally but I do want them to be doing something more useful for us all whatever that may be.
Caring doesn't mean that you stop everything you're doing to address someone's needs. That's a pretty binary world if it was the case and maybe a convenient way to look at motives when you don't want nuance.
Caring about climate change doesn't mean you need to spend your entire life planting trees instead of doing what you're doing.