LLMs tell you what you want to hear, sourced from a random sample of data, not what you need to, based on any professional/expert opinion.
gemini.google.com mentions lactate and fat. But it also knows I care about science. I'm not sure how much history is used currently.
But this is kind of silly because if you're a member of the public and ask a scientist what the brain uses as fuel they'll also say glucose. If you've ever been in a conversation with someone who felt the need to tell you *every detail* of everything they know, then you'll understand that that's not how human communication typically works. So if you want something more specific you have to start the conversation in a way that elicits it.
Indeed.
I'm currently finding myself forced to do so with some customer support agents who keep forgetting critical issues on each step. I do not know if the agents are humans or AI, but either way it's not fun to keep repeating all the same details each time.
And in normal cases, do sometimes notice I've given a wrong impression by skipping some background that I didn't realise the other party didn't already have, precisely because it's not natural to share everything.
I used to think software developer would be the final thing that gets automated because we'd be the ones making specific new AI for each task, but these days I think it's more likely to be spy craft that's the "final profession", because there's nothing to learn from except trial and error — all the info (that isn't leaked) is siloed even within any given intelligence organisation, so AI in that field not only don't get (much) public info about the real skills, they also don't even get classified info. What they will get instead is all the fiction written about spies, which will be about as helpful to real spies as Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise is to the design and construction of the Boeing Starliner.