Except, despite all of your contempt project managers are people who can learn. LLMs are trained and can't learn anything after that. They have a very very short sliding window of context that will start to be dropped when you add more information.
Why does it matter whether they can learn? If I let them run off after a single pass, then yes their understanding of my understanding is relevant. After the Nth review, it’s not. The latter is ideal, else you have the game of telephone
The question is whether their understanding still contributes to the end product, not who does the mechanical action of entering data or drawing images.
…what? If I tell the PM the info needed, and he sufficiently produces the PPT without error, then it’s done? Why do I need further back n’ forths to make it consequential?
The number of passes/reviews is directly tied to error rate. If the PM/AI is able to produce my impression at 100% success, then great, there’s no further work to do.
The only thing learning matters for is with sufficient learning, they might reach a state where they no longer need to be reviewed, because they’ve sufficiently learned to not inject their own interpretation of things into it. They are now a straightforward extension of my own being, and have generated their documents as I would have done (had I the requisite mechanical time/skill/interest for producing whatever is in question).
So your example makes no sense.