Raw LLM Responses

Don't encourage AI. If you ask it a scientific question- it won't be able to tell which fact it pulls from the web is TRUE. It will either pull the most common, or, more sinisterly, it will pull out what opinions (not facts) have generated the most ENGAGEMENT. So if you asked it "do vaccines work", and at the time there is major anti-vax movement it will come back with "there is very little evidence that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks". This is because it won't be going through respected medical journals like the Lancet (especially those behind a pay wall, which academic websites often need due to lack of funding/ prioritising funds for further research), it will scope EVERYTHING. Every clueless oaf who posted on Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, every pub boor who didn't even take a science subject in Secondary School (in the US, High School), or those who did, but it was 40 years ago and now they couldn't define the difference between a prion and a proton- it will hoover all the nonsense up, give priority to the "information" (actually disinformation) that generated the most traffic, the most engagement, and then will convey it you. Because we are calling these programmes AI it is very misleading. There is no intelligence, it is a number cruncher, which will repeat and rephrase words using simple algorithms, which it doesn't understand (because "it" doesn't exist, as an entity, it has no awareness, words mean nothing to it, because there is no "I", no SUBJECT to perceive anything at all.) Letters and words mean as much to it as they do to a chair.