> Well I wish this was true. But loads of DEVs on here will claim LLMs are infallible.

No the don't. You're making a straw man rather than trying to put forth an actual argument in support of your view.

If you feel can't support your point, then don't try to make it.

It's done in a roundabout way. Usually with a variation of "you had a bad experience because you are using the tool incorrectly, get good at prompting".

A straw man? An actual argument?

I responded to this parent comment:

"LLMs have shown the general public how AI can be plain wrong and shouldn't be trusted for everything."

You take issue with my response of:

"loads of DEVs on here will claim LLMs are infallible"

You're not really making sense. I'm not straw-manning anything, as I'm directly discussing the statement made. What exactly are you presuming I'm throwing a straw man over?

It's entirely valid to say "there are loads of supposed experts that don't see this point, and you're expecting the general public to?". That's clearly my statement.

You may disagree, but that doesn't make it a strawman. Nor does it make it a poorly phrased argument on my part.

Do pay better attention please. And your entire last sentence is way over the line. We're not on reddit.