You don't seem to have understood my comment very well.

I understand what the findings say, except for one comment about parabolic vertices. What I don't know is whether any of them are true. It could be hallucinating!

But it probably isn't. The bugs are probably real. The computer vision algorithm result images it's showing me are probably real, not fake. Its claims about the different approach to take might be mistaken, as opposed to fake, but even that seems unlikely.

But I don't know.

> You don't seem to have understood my comment very well.

> But I don't know.

Yes, I understood your comment perfectly.

You said, "Your first impression is that you have no clue if any of its findings actually mean anything because you can't even understand them [...]".

I do in fact understand the findings, as I already clarified in the comment you just clicked "reply" on, and nothing in my original comment suggests that I don't, so you evidently misread it. There's no shame in admitting that. People make mistakes all the time. The shame is in refusing to correct them.

I'll have firmer information once the model has been out for more than 24 hours. But I think my experience report is already firm enough to be useful.

Understanding findings in this context would require that you actually know whether they are true or false, not just that you know what the words mean.

You seem to be attempting to redefine the word "understand" so that it makes your false statement true. You should be ashamed of yourself.