[palmfacehn]

What is 'accuracy' when examined at depth?

With the benefit of greater knowledge and context we are able to critique some of the answers provided by today's LLMs. With the benefit of hindsight we are able to see where past academics and thought leaders went wrong. This isn't the same as confirming that our own position is a zenith of understanding. It would be more reasonable to assume it is a false summit.

Could we not also say that academics have a priority to "publish or perish"? When we use the benefits of hindsight to examine debunked theories, could we not also say that they were too eager to supply answers?

I agree about models filling the gaps with whatever is most probable. That's what they are designed to do. My quibble is that humans often synthesize the least objectionable answers based on group-think, institutional norms and pure laziness.