Like we have formulas describing how gravity works. We can test these formulas by observing the motion of the planets and galaxies. Is this theory true? There's lots of evidence for it so it feels like it's gotta be pretty close to "the truth"

We also have formulas describing how elementary particles behave. These formulas have been tested to a very high degree of precision so it seems they've got to be close to the truth as well. But if you use both our formulas for gravitation and formulas for elementary particles you can derive a contradiction. So these two theories cannot simultaneously be true. There's got to be something wrong with them.

I suppose there's the possibility that at a certain point nature simply doesn't follow any laws and you can't possibly make sense of it.

That is not what the education system does. That's an obvious distortion of reality. People train over billions of documents to statistically predict the next word to gain and understanding of language. LLMs do this statistical processing in order to mimic humans natural language learning ability. And there has been continued evidence of the limitations of this approach to accurately mimic the totality of human cognition.

AI advocates are _way_ too confident about the nature human cognition. Questions that have been debated by philosophers and cognitive scientists for decades are now "obvious" according to you people, though you never provide any argument to support your statements.

I suppose if you lower the standards for what you hope AI can accomplish it wouldn't be considered a failure.

That is not what an ad hominem is.

That is an absolutely wild claim you've made. You're being way to presumptious.

This is an explanation of why models "hallucinate" not a criticism for the provided definition of hallucination.