Ah, fair, there's opportunity cost to that. May as well prioritize what you actually care about, yeah. Personally I'm fine with skimming through the prose in the default style, at least as long as the LLM isn't getting stuck in its own invented jargon. It'd be different if I were publishing that output as project documentation, but I don't even really want to try that.
> I haven’t seen a ton of evidence that these models have human-level argumentation in that latent space.
Not sure what you mean by argumentation. I'd agree that they don't seem to have flashes of insight or make intuitive leaps in the same way. But they clearly can follow through the logical steps of reasoning very thoroughly, once they know what to reason about. For a technology that seemed to struggle with understanding negation a couple years back, it's seemingly miraculous.