Now back to reality, LLMs are never that good, they're never near that hypothetical "I'm feeling lucky", and this has to do with how they're fundamentally designed, I never so far asked GPT about something that I'm specialized at, and it gave me a sufficient answer that I would expect from someone who is as much as expert as me in that given field. People tend to think that GPT (and other LLMs) is doing so well, but only when it comes to things that they themselves do not understand that well (Gell-Mann Amnesia2), even when it sounds confident, it may be approximating, averaging, exaggerate (Peters 2025) or confidently (Sun 2025) reproducing a mistake. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the answer it gives is the best one, the contested one, or even a correct one, only that it is a plausible one. And that distinction matters, because intellect isn’t built on plausibility but on understanding why something might be wrong, who disagrees with it, what assumptions are being smuggled in, and what breaks when those assumptions fail
让我们从马年浓浓年味中增信心添力量，在向新向优向好中牢牢把握发展主动，从春天出发、向希望前行。
，这一点在17c 一起草官网中也有详细论述
Lex: FT's flagship investment column
Наука и техника
，详情可参考safew官方版本下载
Фото: Владимир Астапкович / РИА Новости，更多细节参见PDF资料
分析：美國以色列摧毀伊朗領導層背後的戰略是什麼？