> good enough result (…) sounds plausible It’s paramount to not conflate the two. LLM answers are almost always the latter with no guarantee of being the forme

> good enough result (…) sounds plausible It’s paramount to not conflate the two. LLM answers are almost always the latter with no guarantee of being the former. That is a tremendous flaw with real consequences. > it’s a general weakness in human cognition, and has little to do with AI in and of itself. A distinction without merit. Like blaming people for addictive behaviour while simultaneously exploiting human psychology to sell them the very same addiction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJT0NMYHeGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJT0NMYHeGw This “technically correct” approach to arguing where the fault lies precludes productive discussion on fixing the problem. You cannot in good faith shout from the rooftops LLMs are going to solve all our problems and then excuse its numerous failures with “but we added a note you should always verify the answer. It’s down in the cellar, with no lights and stairs, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’”. It has become norm for people to “settle” disputes by quoting or showing a screenshot of an LLM answer. Often wrong. It is irrelevant to argue people should do better; they don’t, and that’s the reality you have to address.