I don't really find this a helpful line to traverse. By this line of inquiry most of the things in software are psychological. Whether something is a bug or fe

I don't really find this a helpful line to traverse. By this line of inquiry most of the things in software are psychological. Whether something is a bug or feature. Whether the right thing was built. Whether the thing is behaving correctly in general. Whether it's better at the very moment that the thing occasionally works for a whole range of stuff or that it works perfectly for a small subset. Whether fast results are more important than absolutely correct results for a given context. Yes, all things above are also related with each other. The most we have for LLMs is tallying up each user's experience using an LLM for a period of time for a wide rane of "compelling" use cases (the pairing of their prompts and results are empirical though right?). This should be no surprise, as humans often can't agree on an end-all-be-all intelligence test for humans either.