This is, imo, such an obviously near term capability that its not worth bringing up as a limitation.

That model doesn't exist.

We have models that can read text and then probabilistically create a summary that's the most likely to match the original.

But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe.

What you're describing is basically a world model, and while there's a few folks claiming these LLMs are showing the glimmers of building world models, it's mostly speculation.

I asked 3.5 to do it for you.

> The paragraph that explains that models cannot be used for fact checking is:

> "But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe."

It’s not hard to imagine a very simple tool to try and find citations for claims. Or perhaps, derive claims from a source with citations.