AI utility is perceived uniquely by programmers, scientists, and writers

Their understanding of the exoskeleton, the exo-wings, and what those can do is entirely different. And it is not just a matter of "their understanding." The actual capabilities are genuinely different, the relevant functionality is genuinely different, and the ways of mining chat pearls are genuinely different too.

Strangely enough, I tend to place the writer in the manager category - he effectively manages the actions of his characters and strives to produce certain impressions on his superiors, meaning his audience and readers.

The programmer ideally wants a precise formal solution that can be quickly and cheaply verified in debugging.

The manager needs to improve something in his system, and life will be the judge of that - slowly, tediously, expensively, and often with ambiguous interpretations.

The student needs to go deep into knowledge, and the scientist needs to go deep into knowledge and also do the manager's job - searching for ways to apply and extend that knowledge.

This is of course a very incomplete list of the meaningful variations. But it will be enough for you to start understanding that there are very different worlds in the use of AI - and this is true even within a single profession, from junior all the way up to investor, senior, architect, and so on. Programmers who build AI or build agents on top of it often have no idea about these other possibilities. They often don't even know the names of the most important fields of knowledge required for that other kind of work with AI.

Here you will find notes on these topics, fragments of various files that were meant to become secret but somehow never did: https://zenodo.org/records/18824868 "These are notes that are not obliged to be true, let alone universally true."