As for "humans writing the docs", you raise a good point although it's not quite what I imagined when I wrote that line. I was thinking more about having the LLM/Agent create a list of verified output by humans with reputations as experts in whatever field interests you. This is important when pushing the boundaries of research, although it's overkill for wanting to know whether or not a new technology could be useful in your existing project (or the next one).

What use case did you have in mind when you brought up the docs situation? Sounds like you had some direct experience with that one.

You could potentially ask an LLM to explain it, but I would venture a guess that wouldn't feel like the right source to help you. You could use the LLM to help you identify source material written by humans in order to learn anything new. It doesn't have to "do all the work for you".

Modern AI systems are powerful. They are not omnipotent or omniscient. Understanding the details is still valuable, especially if you want to push the frontier of any known field.

In any event, the situation isn't hopeless. At least not yet. :)

I would say that classifying an argument as "silly" without any supporting evidence is borderline ad hominem because it doesn't make a substantive critique of the assertion, and instead colors the character of the opposition. But that shouldn't take away from your position.

As for your suggestion that I am being arrogant, I can see where you're coming from but I also feel as though I'm within the bounds of fairness to push for a reasoned response (instead of an emotional appeal).

All that said, thanks for replying in a way that advances the discourse. Much appreciated.

I said that people in REMOTE regions, by which I mean those who are underserved by traditional internet access such as fiber or coax or twisted-pair, are served by Starlink in significant numbers.

Please give demonstrable facts that dispute this claim if you disagree.

(edit: I genuinely don't understand how your replies are anything other than ad hominem attacks. Your responses are about as effective as a toddler asking "why?" over and over and over again. Either deliver a substantive counter argument or stop replying.)

(edit 2: I assume you are the one who downvoted this reply. That only adds to the factual evidence that you are struggling to defend your position via legitimate means. This isn't a personal attack. I hoped you would engage in legitimate discourse. Please do better in the future.)

Let's revive RSS.

It's still good, even if it's been on the floor beyond the "five second rule".

Which social network has larger reach than X? Which social network has stronger influence on humans who make policy decisions than X?

Which internet provider can deliver reliable access to remote regions than Starlink? Which internet provider has manipulated access in contested regions than Starlink?

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I don't know. What I do know is that your baseless assertions are meaningless to me. Show the facts and figures that support your claims. That's the only way to avoid being a garden-variety internet troll.