> the model could infer a relationship between those based on the massive amounts of other size comparisons That is true! But would it be factually correct? Th

> the model could infer a relationship between those based on the massive amounts of other size comparisons That is true! But would it be factually correct? That's the whole point of my argument. The knowledge and connections that it acquires comes from its training data and it is trained for completing well-structured sentences, not correct ones. Its training data is the freaking internet. ChatGPT stating facts are a happy coincidence because (1) the internet is filled with incorrect information, (2) its training is wired for mimicking human-language's rich statistical structure, not generating factual sentences, and (3) its own powerful and awesome inference capabilities can make it hallucinate completely false but convincingly-structured sentences. Sure, it can regurgitate simple facts accurately, especially those that are repeated enough in its training corpus. But it fails for more challenging queries. For a personal anecdote, I tried asking it for some references for a particular topic I needed to review in my masters dissertation. It gave me a few papers, complete with title, author, year, and a short summary. I got really excited. Turns out all the papers it referenced were completely hallucinated :)