This is a red herring.

There are many ways in which this reasoning is flawed at its foundation.

The main flawed assumption in this assumes that the information provided by an LLM is both factual, and accurate, and that these junior developers will be able to adequately determine this.

In most cases the process of validating accuracy takes more time than the process of learning it the right way in the first place, and it requires domain knowledge they do not have. This makes for an impossible task of the junior, and allows them to easily be misled to false and destructive conclusions.

It is well established that hallucinations occur in these models, and have occurred to the point where legal professionals have cited non-existent sources and perjured themselves in the process, threatening the investment they made in their career in its entirety.

These professionals are highly incentivized to avoid this outcome, but its still happened regardless of the incentives, repeatedly, with several making national news over the span of a year, and similar news the previous year.

The entire premise you make is that rapid learning occurs, but it neglects and conflates the word 'learning' whose normal context is fact and truth, to that of learning falsehoods, which reflect and promote destructive delusion.

In the absence of learning in its normal context, the latter's likelihood occurs exponentially with each additional factor, while the former trends towards 0 as a fractional. Its a chair without legs.

Following from this towards introducing it to people at a young age, where children are biologically incapable of discerning falsehood, this promotes an indoctrinated state of delusion and circular reasoning with no rational basis, in reality it is quite an evil thing in my opinion hobbling the young and ruining their futures by induction of maladaptive reasoning frameworks.

Children are a vulnerable set of the population, and such activities can only diminish the young's abilities to survive long term. Something no good person would ever do.

There is a thing in literature called a Devil's pleasure palace. It refers to a short story, though I don't remember the author, it was slavic iirc, where a Noble of the Aristocracy tests his daughter's fiance to determine if they would maintain fidelity after marriage, without them knowing its a test.

A witch and magic are employed, though one can imagine drugs being used as well, and the prospective husband is led through a series of events unbeknownst to them, in repeated attempts to induce in him every possible indulgence without consequence.

He is tested for several days, unable to leave, and when he tries to leave he is told he cannot unless he partakes. Should he cave in to desire he would have been killed on the spot, he doesn't instead choosing to die instead.

He neither agreed to this (informed consent), nor knew of it happening, thus making it both a sinister and malevolent tale of chance, where the outcome will be destructive in all but the fairy tales, especially given the vulnerability of the young.

LLM's and AI broadly depict this in their function. They deceive, and manipulate those utilizing them without any perception of this having happened, because the required knowledge to do so is outside their domain of knowledge. The same as any fallacy by authority.

No education true to any valid definition would ever use these. Involuntary indoctrination is a vile thing, and there is no place for doctrines of Learning Understanding Acceptance, lest you somehow imagine the world is better off as depicted in 1984 by Orwell, where in reality, shortage and slavery eventually devolve into famine and population collapse through the Socialist Calculation Problem (Malthus/Catton/Mises).

LLM's shouldn't be called Large Language Models, they are more appropriately Looming Liability Machines.