You seem to be quite certain that I had not read the article, yet I distinctly remember doing do.

By what proceess do you imagine I arrived at the conclusion that the article suggested that published quotes were LLM hallucinations when that was not mentioned in the article title?

You accuse me of performative skepticism, yet all I think is that it is better to have evidence over assumptions, and it is better to ask if that evidence exists.

It seems a much better approach than making false accusations based upon your own vibes, I don't think Scott Shambaugh went to that level though.