My LLMs frequently find subtle typos and never make subtle typos. I don't think that's equally likely at all.

> Insane. An LLM is just as likely to hallucinate a missing/extra underscore and ping the wrong person

If it's just for "Catching typos", a hallucinated missing/extra underscore would just be a false positive to dismiss.

> A machine cannot be held accountable.

Seems unlikely that his lawyer, the law firm, the judge, whoever made the typo, or the police department will be held accountable either.

Nor can any of the tools they used, since that's not really the level at which it makes sense to hold accountability, but that's no reason not to use a tool that could find errors and reduce the chance for an innocent person to spend time in prison.

What's insane is that people say things like this in 2026. I suspect it stems from being retired and not really using LLMs for work, and instead using them for leisure, and therefore not knowing that they're extremely capable for logical operations, much more than they are for entertainment. Your second point about "machine cannot be held accountable" is a non sequitur, so I'll leave it.

Using LLMs to find errors and using LLMs to produce error-free artifacts are two extremely different levels of challenge.