I have great success in specifically asking LLM tools for academic literature after describing the problem or field I would like to get some insight into.

It's usually the first step I take when writing research. I don't even read the analysis, just go straight for the papers.

They usually provide me with very relevant seminal papers and I can then easily expand from the bibliography in those papers.

It basically solves discoverability, whereas in the past I would spend days and would need to ask colleagues and librarians for help, to achieve what I can get in minutes now.

But again, I value the actual output of the LLMs at bellow zero factually wise because I need to check everything they say if I want to internalize it and use it for any end. Pointing me to sources is the perfect use case. Really, I cannot emphasize enough how little I trust the text LLMs produce, I actively avoid reading it because I really don't want to risk ingesting spurious information that I might later repeat or rely on for any reason.

Yeah, I think part of it is - I want LLM's to do I think what they're promising to do which is like provide new perspectives on things.

But they're response is kinda always.

"Python? Have you considered that some people prefer, javascript?"

To your point, I think I'm asking too much, and would have a better time if I adjusted my approach.