It really illustrates (to me) that LLMs are "Plausibility Machines". They produce plausible answers. Plausibility is informed by repeated observability over large sets. We asses something as plausible when it matches the majority of our observations. That's how the parlor trick of seeming to "tell the truth" is pulled off. The venn overlap of "plausible" and "true" is pretty high. But when "truth" is in flux, you start to see the feet of the wizard behind the curtain.