Why are you asking them to cite something for that statement? Are you questioning whether it's the foundation for intelligence or whether LLMS understand goals and consequences?
If they can perform well without reviewing the material, that's a problem with either the performance measure or the material.
And not watching lectures is not the same as not reviewing the material. I generally prefer textbooks and working through proofs or practice problems by hand. If I listen to someone describe something technical I zone out too quickly. The only exception seems to be if I'm able to work ahead enough that the lecture feels like review. Then I'm able to engage.
I disagree that attackers aren't sophisticated enough to use modified tools. There are entire work campuses dedicated to committing fraud. There's also state sponsored subterfuge. There's no reason to think that bad actors are intrinsically unsophisticated.
IDK. I think sometimes people lean into the idiosyncrasies of their own ADHD. I have ADHD, but I get sucked into writing code because it lets me focus in a way that dishes and laundry do not.
I don't know about that. Even with a company like Google, 12 years is a long time. What if the responsible attorney retired? I've never worked in a legal setting, but I could imagine that causing their work being reevaluated for cost effectiveness.
As for it being imprecise, it doesn't talk about any specific software that has any compatibility issues. It dismisses the topic out of hand.