Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but when I was in school Wiki sources were forbidden across the board.
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but when I was in school Wiki sources were forbidden across the board.
However, I see a big difference. First, Wikipedia generally lists its sources (LLMs don't, or not always, or just completely invent references). And then if I give Wikipedia as a source, first I chose that it was good enough in this case (I am not doing a PhD in the history of email), and I assume that you can think critically about the fact that it comes from Wikipedia (probably you will agree that it is good enough in this case).
Referencing an LLM is the exact equivalent to saying "a friend who I know routinely tells me complete bullshit told me this". I honestly don't see how this can get better than e.g. Wikipedia. Well at least before LLMs are used to populate Wikipedia and destroy it, I mean.