I disagree. It's not even that useful to train LLMs to read an ancient analog clock.

Unless we're talking about AGI, I couldn't care less if an LLM is bad at things they won't be doing anyway.

I'd rather focus training data on more useful tasks.

It's not that useful for a person to be able to read an analog clock either, but if a supposed-genius came to me and confidently gave the wrong answer, it would say something about their strengths/weaknesses in general.

The whole point of these models is they're meant to be able to generalize fairly well, not just answer questions the got trained on.