A bunch of comments here seem to be missing a point : the author is (at least was ?) a scientist. Her primarily work interest is in the truth, not the statical

A bunch of comments here seem to be missing a point : the author is (at least was ?) a scientist. Her primarily work interest is in the truth, not the statically plausible. Her point is that using LLM to generate truth is pointless, and that people should stop advertising llms as "intelligent", since, to a scientist, being "intelligent" and being "dead wrong" are polar opposite. Other use cases have feedback loops - it does not matter so much if Claude spuits wrong code, provided you have a compiler and automated tests. Scientists _are_ acting as compilers to check truth. And they rely on truths compiled by other scientists, just like your programs rely on code written by other people. What if I tell you that, from now on, any third party library that you call will _stastically_ work 76% of the time, and I have no clue what it does is the remaining X % ?(I don't know what X is, I haven't hast chatgpt yet.) In the meantime, I still have to see a headline "AI X discovered life-changing new Y on its own" (the closest thing I know of is alpha fold, which I both know is apparently "changing the world of scientists", and yet feel has "not changed the world of your average joe, so far" - emphasis on the "so far" ) ; but I've already seen at least one headline of "dumb mistake made because an AI hallucinated". I suppose we have to hope the trend will revert at some point ? Hope, on a Friday...