Exactly! Never ever ever have AI write for you. Ask it to critique what you wrote, ask it to pick your arguments apart. Then use your mind to fix what it pointed out. If you cannot figure out how, ask the AI to explain how. Then take a break, 20 minutes is fine, and then return and fix the issue yourself using your own mind to write without assistance. This is how one uses AI to learn.
> It might cite non existing diverging opinions, misuse sources or introduce subtle changes in a citation.
Just like a person could, which is why one validates. AI is not one's sole information. That's dangerous, to say the least. It also helps to stay within one's formal education, and/or experience, and stay within logical boundaries one can track themselves. It is really all about understanding what you are doing, committing to run without you.
I mean the thing is, AI is a stochastic parrot. But so is grabbing a random book from a library in a certain sense. You will always have to think about it yourself.
But that means considering LLMs as a thinking tool rather than a tool that does work for you is worth it.
The only issue I see with it is that you can still become very dependent. Nothing will feel right unless AI reviews it.
The problem with this strategy is that unless you commit logical fallacies you cannot trust the AI critic. Why? It might cite non existing diverging opinions, misuse sources or introduce subtle changes in a citation.