Eximius

Somewhat tailored response per your username: Anything the ministry of truth decides should not be part of the training set.

But more generally, even in things like neurodivergence, lots of questions you could ask that would be in the bounds of “guesstimation” by professionals. The problem is these LLM will spout pure utter highly-believably-confident snake oil with the tiniest little legal microscopic fineprint on the side of the html webpage that you can never scroll to saying “AI responses can be wrong”.

For me, the mere fact that you have a nicely worded source of information that, depending if you’re lucky with your question, is pure scientific fact, or utter maddening bullshit, makes me terrified to use it.

ChatGPT and others have a ~ 90% and more hallucination rate on questions it wasnt trained on. You’re playing a game of luck using gpt and others for knowledge that you’re not verifying by source.

Always was… just had to find the seller who sells you the laptop without a prepurchased license/preinstalled windows. Sadly was always higher tier stuff that had a choice.

To your last paragraph: Yes and no. It’s not only the material that is taught, but also the approaches that you learn while dealing with it.

If you cheated on the theater exam, and masterfully didn’t get caught. On paper: great. In reality: social settings might be harder to deal with, because you would approach them in the same way. Just it’s not visible on paper.

If you didnt cheat and flunked: You’re a programmer who can stamp out code, and most likely unable to deal with anything else at work that is more theatrical than cold hard logic and math.

I always saw education (and most intelligent people do corroborate as well) as a training ground, not entirely for the substance taught, but to show that you can deal with it (your function 2, but more in the sense, given such problems, you will know how to approach them, and where to look for knowledge, because nobody remembers everything).