I dont use LLMs much. When I do, the experience always feels like search 2.0. Information at your fingertips. But you need to know exactly what you're looking for to get exactly what you need. The more complicated the problem, the more fractal / divergent outcomes there are. (Im forming the opinion that this is going to be the real limitations of LLMs).

I recently used copilot.com to help solve a tricky problem for me (which uses GPT 5.1):

   I have an arbitrary width rectangle that needs to be broken into smaller 
   random width rectangles (maintaining depth) within a given min/max range. 

The first solution merged the remainder (if less than min) into the last rectangle created (regardless if it exceeded the max).

So I poked the machine.

The next result used dynamic programming and generated every possible output combination. With a sufficiently large (yet small) rectangle, this is a factorial explosion and stalled the software.

So I poked the machine.

I realized this problem was essentially finding the distinct multisets of numbers that sum to some value. The next result used dynamic programming and only calculated the distinct sets (order is ignored). That way I could choose a random width from the set and then remove that value. (The LLM did not suggest this). However, even this was slow with a large enough rectangle.

So I poked my brain.

I realized I could start off with a greedy solution: Choose a random width within range, subtract from remaining width. Once remaining width is small enough, use dynamic programming. Then I had to handle the edges cases (no sets, when it's okay to break the rules.. etc)

So the LLMs are useful, but this took 2-3 hours IIRC (thinking, implementation, testing in an environment). Pretty sure I would have landed on a solution within the same time frame. Probably greedy with back tracking to force-fit the output.