> No,the "counter argument" as you put it, is that if you only "know" things that come with a link, you have no value over an LLM As opposed to knowing things

> No,the "counter argument" as you put it, is that if you only "know" things that come with a link, you have no value over an LLM As opposed to knowing things without evidence and trying to convince people of a position without providing evidence? Is that how history is supposed to be done, without evidence? As least with a link you can gauge the quality of the reference and its sources.