Epistemological weirdness

They are also notably bad at judging the historical significance of what they find.

I use LLMs for some things that are outside the more common use-cases (in my case 3D design for 3D printing) and one thing I've noticed is that the errors it makes are so completely unlike human errors that they are hard to anticipate.

It will do things like build perfect snap catches but put them so the the pieces they are connecting are rotated 90 degrees from how they should be. It's "dumb" error, but hard to say the model itself if dumb because it does other very hard things so perfectly.

seven chord groups

This sounds a lot more like Opus 5.0 than Opus 5.5 TBH. I wonder if that was an earlier investigation because 5.5 has improved that kind of language a lot.

If they were the total I would say it was arguably more impressive the author was able to narrow it down to just 3000 pages than it was to find the dodo mention amongst those!

They are worse at coming up with new ideas of their own. What seems to work best is if they are placed on the boundary between two disciplines

This is a fantastic concept. This is where the blacksmith and the baker alone will never come up with the idea for a new furnace that seems rather obvious if you knew both trades.