You stated that an LLM can replace a book.
As far as I know in the field of logic the one making a statement, in this case you, is the one who has to prove it.
But in this case you make a statemen and then ask ME to prove it wrong? Makes zero fucking sense.
As much as you don't apreciate it, that is how debate and logic works.
The idea that an LLM can replace the role of a book doesn't seem like it should even be controversial to me.
You buy a non-fiction book to learn something, or to act as a reference.
An LLM provides an alternative mechanism for learning that thing, or looking up those reference points.
What am I missing here?
Do you think a search engine could replace a book?
So you are not only stating than a LLM can replace a book. Directly you are saying that it is an axiom.
It is so self evident true that you don't even need to reason about it.
That LLMs can replace a book is a fundamental truth of the universe like the euclid postulates or like 1=1.
Well then there is no way to continue the conversation, because by definition axioms can't be false.
I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but you'll have to make a concrete argument rather than just critiquing the way I'm discussing this.