You're using a very bad definition of incomprehensible. We don't understand the chemistry behind how these things work, it's that simple. If you're going to argue it's comprehensible, you'd better show how it works and go collect your Nobel prize.

All we know is that if we melt the right rocks together, we get a superconductor that works in some mysterious way that we can't explain. We know it's not Cooper pairs.

▲

chongli 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

No, I’m using the right one [1]. You are the one using a bizarre definition for your own purposes.

I can see there is no further productive discussion to be had with you at all. I bid you good day.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incomprehensible

	▲	a2ff6eeb0 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Since it's possible to comprehend, please point me to someone that can comprehend high temperature superconductivity and how it works, and then explain why they didn't explain it. With the definition you seem to want to use, it's impossible for anything to be incomprehensible, and therefore it's tautological that there's no incomprehensible LLM output: nothing at all is incomprehensible.