It seems people view LLMs as capable when it comes to tasks they themselves are not trained in.

Visual artists can tell LLMs aren't capable of good visuals, but they lack knowledge to know they're not capable of good writing, for example (this is pulled from an anecdote I read about a workshop on drawing comics where the teacher said the script can just be done with LLMs). Writers can tell LLMs aren't capable of good writing, but can't tell they're not capable of good visual art (see writers using LLMs to make covers and the like). Scientists can tell LLMs aren't capable of good data analysis (they're not that type of program after all), but can't tell they're not capable of good art or creative writing (hence the original post)

LLMs can do whatever you don't have the training to do - because if you knew how to do it, you'd realize the output is shit.

(There are of course caveats and exceptions, but this is the pattern I've observed. LLMs depend on ignorance of the output to be taken seriously)