Another position that largely misses the point I think. There is no absolute positioning on this - LLM assistants are applicable at most stages, whether you need to maximize your own judiciousness or maximize velocity depends on the current problem, and you.
Open source (classical) & use-restriction is kinda at-odds, so it doesn't really make sense. That's not to say people don't do it - you can restrict the software however you want, it's just not open source (maybe look at some equivalent of Ethical Source?)
A smart person just said: my hypothesis that event is likely happen! It happens 90% of the time!
Some time passed, the event did not happen. Same person said: ok, 50%, either happens or not.
Some time passed, the event did not happen. Same person said: all my previous predictions were correct, now let's apply Bayesian update: (1-0.9) * 0.5 / 0.5 = 0.1, so now posterior belief that the event is likely to happen drops from 50% to 10%.
Objective truth isn't something you can know, but it's a destination that must exist for pursuit of knowledge/curiosity to have any meaning.
With contradictions you know what is not true, and through knowing what is not true, you can approach what is true. Truth is expressed in consistency, not completeness.
That's why anyone should be extremely suspicious of anyone who is not, or doesn't care about, being internally consistent.
You're getting downvoted because you're retreating into philosophical nihilism rather than actually addressing the points. If you disagree with how people interpret the studies, the studies themselves, or how science measures reality - just say that.
