no because this is literally in development, this isn’t some 60 year old mature tech

Of course, you don't have research supporting your position because it's still in development. So obviously we can just ignore all the papers released over the last decade+ which show the opposite of what you're claiming - convenient!

there is already academic accessible research talking about LLM issues of which the major concern is hallucinations, to the point where the word bailout is starting to make the rounds in the us from these very companies

the argument is whether or not you believe this is inherent or fixable and a big focus is on the training

anyone listening to any ai company right now is a damn fool with the obvious circular vendor bullshit going on

Yeah, as I expected - you literally don't understand what this conversation is even about. Since you have a bone to pick with the industry, you make up random claims that you think make the industry look bad. But what you don't understand is: you're just making a fool of yourself by making subjective claims around topics you simply don't understand. Critique the AI industry for the greedy, useless shit they're doing and creating, not by making up wrong "facts" and ignoring all evidence against them.

And just to save us both time, I'll list try to list positions you seem to think I hold, which I don't:

• I don't think LLMs will ever get rid of hallucinations
• I don't think LLMs will get better and better by only training on output from previous LLMs
• I don't think LLMs are the path to AGI
• I don't think any of the marketing done by AI companies is truthful

If you choose to reply again and think I'm lying about not holding these positions, re-read the conversation until you understand it.