> Except there is a qualitative difference in the class of knowledge that a statistical word generator and an expert system would generate. There's a lot of di

> Except there is a qualitative difference in the class of knowledge that a statistical word generator and an expert system would generate. There's a lot of difference between the two, and you don't have to treat it as one or another. It's OK to treat it as something in the middle. > The most troubling factor here is that often the hallucinated content also looks like valuable and insightful information, but is just incorrect. This is the use. You have to hold that awareness whenever interacting with these systems. Completely agree, sans the word "troubling". It's not troubling. It is what it is. As long as you keep it in mind when you use it, and treat it as an entity that can be completely wrong, and use it where it's OK to be completely wrong (e.g. when the output is easily verifiable), there's nothing "troubling" with that.