Do you actually read any literature or are you just saying things for fun? For instance, the work in LLMs "are" knowledge graphs, wherein entire knowledge grap

Do you actually read any literature or are you just saying things for fun? For instance, the work in LLMs "are" knowledge graphs, wherein entire knowledge graphs are extracted from the LLM, or work in ROME which shows that much of the knowledge in relationships exist in the MLPs sections off the NN, or the larger body of works wherein KGs are used in conjunction and trained with the LLM (typically not improving the results to better than sota today), etc. So your statement that it would be more powerful doesn't necessarily stand up in practice, but is a nice theory. Ultimately it's in the details, and it's probably possible to mix explicit "knowledge" with LLMs, but the contextualization of KGs is extremely hard in that scenario, and is handled within the LLM anyway.