Now back to reality, LLMs are never that good, they're never near that hypothetical "I'm feeling lucky", and this has to do with how they're fundamentally designed, I never so far asked GPT about something that I'm specialized at, and it gave me a sufficient answer that I would expect from someone who is as much as expert as me in that given field. People tend to think that GPT (and other LLMs) is doing so well, but only when it comes to things that they themselves do not understand that well (Gell-Mann Amnesia2), even when it sounds confident, it may be approximating, averaging, exaggerate (Peters 2025) or confidently (Sun 2025) reproducing a mistake. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the answer it gives is the best one, the contested one, or even a correct one, only that it is a plausible one. And that distinction matters, because intellect isn’t built on plausibility but on understanding why something might be wrong, who disagrees with it, what assumptions are being smuggled in, and what breaks when those assumptions fail
金融城|交子缦华荣获2025年成都主城区千万级豪宅三冠王；
，这一点在新收录的资料中也有详细论述
ВСУ запустили «Фламинго» вглубь России. В Москве заявили, что это британские ракеты с украинскими шильдиками16:45
“How do we make sure that these systems are really hardened? How do we make sure that they’re rigorously tested?”