The title is factually correct, but the content is utterly disappointing, and felt like little more than a journalist trying to prove itself smarter than a LLM

The title is factually correct, but the content is utterly disappointing, and felt like little more than a journalist trying to prove itself smarter than a LLM. (It shouldn’t have taken so many words.) Unfortunately the journalist doesn’t seem to truly understand that readers don’t need said journalist to interview said LLM - they can have their own conversations, and skip the New Yorker subscription entirely.