[ben_w]

Given how well chatGPT can explain code, I'm reasonably confident it can do much better than the lowest common denominator of people on the internet talking about any given expert document.

May well still give a false sense of knowledge, but that's a very common problem for all of us.

[devmor]

An LLM can reasonably explain code because code is both a closed, finite set of instructions and heavily explained in the training data that contains a vast number of learning materials.

A novel scientific paper is much, much different than code.

[ben_w]

> A novel scientific paper is much, much different than code.

Sure, just not in a way that matters.

Human language is a "closed, finite set" of symbols (to the same extent as code, at least), all of which are heavily explained in the training data that contains a vast number of learning materials.

Science is about the novel things; but when the things are so novel the research has to invent new words to discuss these things, those new words come with explanations of what they mean.