> They go on to note that because of these limitations, a learning machine might produce results which are "dangerously wrong"

I was initially thinking "well, yes, Nobel Prize for Stating the Obvious there", but looks like the paper was written in the far distant past of 2021, when LLMs were largely still in their babbling obvious nonsense stage, rather than the current state of the art, where they babble dangerously convincing nonsense, so, well, fair enough I suppose.

Amazing how fast progress has been there, though it's progress in an arguably rather worrying direction, of course.