> If you have to verify its information by other means, then you're not really saving much effort. Just like any piece of code we write. We have to test, debug

> If you have to verify its information by other means, then you're not really saving much effort. Just like any piece of code we write. We have to test, debug, verify and it still might have errors after that. And in scientific papers the conclusions are often contradicted by other papers. The correct way to use it is to set up a verification mechanism. Fact checking, code tests, even ensembling predictions to see if they are consistent might help. In some cases we can set up a game and use the game winner as indication of correctness (like AlphaGo). But sometimes only running a real life experiment will suffice. That's why human scientists need experiments - because humans are just like LLMs, but with external verification as part of a game (of life).