[belter]

My point is a teacher will not do something like this:

- Confident synthesis of incompatible sources: LLM: “Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize for his theory of relativity, which he presented at the 1915 Solvay Conference.”

Or

- Fabricated but plausible citations: LLM: “According to Smith et al., 2022, Nature Neuroscience, dolphins recognise themselves in mirrors.” There is no such paper...model invents both authors and journal reference

And this is the danger of coding with LLMs....

[diggan]

I don't know what reality you live in, but it happens that teachers are incorrect, no matter what your own personal experience have been. I'm not sure how this is even up for debate.

What matters is how X reacts when you point out it wasn't correct, at least in my opinion, and was the difference I was trying to highlight.

[belter]

A human tutor typically misquotes a real source or says “I’m not sure”

An LLM, by contrast, will invent a flawless looking but nonexistent citation. Even a below average teacher doesn’t churn out fresh fabrications every tenth sentence.

Because a teacher usually cites recognizable material, you can check the textbook and recover quickly. With an LLM you first have to discover the source never existed. That verification cost is higher, the more complex task you are trying to achieve.

A LLM will give you a perfect paragraph about the AWS Database Migration service, the list of supported databases, and then include in there a data flow like on-prem to on-prem data that is not supported...Relying on an LLM is like flying with a friendly copilot but who has multiple personality disorder. You dont know which day he will forget to take his meds :-)

Stressful and mentally exhausting in a different kind of way....