Let’s not. I’d like you to tell me what I got wrong. I described the output of LLMs as “a bunch of pablum [which means ‘trite, insipid, or simplistic writing or speech’] that sounds convincing and sycophantic[.]”

So do you want studies that show they product pablum, studies that show their output sounds plausible and convincing even when it’s wrong, or studies that show they’re trained for sycophancy?

What I posted was correct.

Because I’m capable of reading chat logs and research posted by humans. I follow this stuff closely, because I’m a software developer and it impacts my career. I don’t have to use LLMs to understand how they work and what they do.

I’m… not? I don’t touch the stuff.

You’re right, it responds with a bunch of pablum that sounds convincing and sycophantic, too.