Let's not. I'd like you to tell me what I got wrong. I described the output of LLMs as "a bunch of pablum [which means 'trite, insipid, or simplistic writing or speech'] that sounds convincing and sycophantic[.]"

So do you want studies that show they product pablum, studies that show their output sounds plausible and convincing even when it's wrong, or studies that show they're trained for sycophancy?