> "I'm sure the LLM can not only list these publications, but give me reasonable answers to the 100 questions I had above. In a literal fraction of the time."

> "I'm sure the LLM can not only list these publications, but give me reasonable answers to the 100 questions I had above. In a literal fraction of the time." Sure. It can also just as easily give you totally wrong answers that sound totally plausible, and it'll seem quite convinced of the accuracy of it's output, because it's just stringing "tokens" (bits of encoded language) together seeking to generate valid sounding output based on it's training dataset and the user's input. What most people label as LLM "hallucinations" is actually all that LLMs do. They don't actually "understand" the output they're generating. It's all statistics and fancy math. They're just as certain of an "incorrect" output as they are of a correct one, because from the "point of view" of the LLM, all output they generate is actually correct, as long as it doesn't outright violate the rules of the language being output or the dataset the model was trained on.