?? Ontological Imagination and the Boundary of Conversation

It has been quite some time since I reached a phased conclusion about hallucinations and general claims.

Moving forward is challenging as I seem to have lost sight of my original question. I do feel frustrated when interacting with LLMs, but I'm uncertain about the source of this frustration after refuting the reasons above. If these are not the primary causes, what might the underlying issues be?

The possibility of impaired critical thinking can be easily ruled out, as obviously I am still capable of articulating my thoughts. So why, in certain instances, do we fail to obtain satisfying answers? I propose two modest hypotheses.

First, could it be that some questions inherently lack a hyper-consensus? Drawing from Habermas, perhaps the resolution is not centered on ontology, but rather on communication.

Second, is it possible that conversations rarely generate meaning? What we seek in these questions might be unattainable within the bounds of ontological imagination. The 'meaning' we pursue is not a straightforward causal inference, and it cannot be guaranteed by certain types of techniques (such as CoT).

I am not suggesting that all techniques are futile, but rather, considering whether showing respect to the limitations of language.