Fact recollection is not most people’s definition of intelligence. In fact, it’s something that the only known intelligent systems are infamously bad at.

So you’re saying I used it wrong? How does that help the pro-LLM case? What should have I asked it? Some philosophical question that didn’t involve “fact recollection”?

At least this latest tech bluff is not bankrupting regular people like the crypto tech bluff had done.

I almost never use people for fact checking either, they are horrifically bad at at. But if you're fact checking you tend to have a well formed idea already that can be searched in factual databases.

If you have a more abstract idea "I'm using X programming language and I want to accomplish Y but I have Z limitation how would I do that, can you explain it and show me in code", you can get actionable information much in the same way if I asked another person that had some knowledge of the problem. I don't get perfect answers from programmers either, but I get to a solution much faster than if I'm spinning the wheel of Google returning spam sites or sites telling me something I don't really want to do.

You used the model for fact checking. These models are not good at being used as a knowledge base.

I would never use an LLM for fact checking, then you'd have to check again using something else.

Usually for asking questions about specific details, people are using RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) to ground the information and provide enough context for the llm to return the correct answers. This means additional engineering plumbing and very specific context to query information from.