That knowledge is out of date and out of touch. While it’s possible to expose small bits of training data, that’s akin to someone being able to recall a portion of the memory of the scene they saw. However, those exercises essentially took what sometimes equates to weeks or months of interrogation method knowledge gained over time employed by people looking to target specific types of responses. Think of it like a skilled police interrogator tricking a toddler out of one of their toys by threatening them or offering them something until it worked. Nowadays, that’s getting far more difficult to do and they’re spending a lot more time and expertise to do it.

Also, consider how complex a dragonfly is and how young this technology is. Very little in tech has ever progressed that fast. Give it five more years and come back to laugh at how naive your comment will seem.

Half of your argument is just saying, “nu-uh” over and over again without any valid counterpoints.

In the same way that a person can learn the material and also use that knowledge to potentially plagiarize it, though. It’s no different in that sense. What is different is the speed of learning and both the speed and capacity of recall. However, it doesn’t change the fundamental truths of OP’s explanation.

Also, when you’re talking specifically about music, you’re talking about a very limited subset of note combinations that will sound pleasing to human ears. Additionally, even human composers commonly struggle to not simply accidentally reproduce others’ work, which is partly why the music industry is filled with constant copyright litigation.

For summarization, having the data correct is crucial because manual typing itself is not a large chore. AI tends to shine more when you’re producing a lot of manual labor such as a 10-page document for something. At that point, the balance tips the other way where proofing and correcting is much easier and less time-consuming than the production itself. That’s where AI comes in for the gains in workflows. It has other fantastic uses as well, like being another voice for brainstorming ideas. If done well, you’re not taking the AI’s idea so much as just using it to spur more creative thinking on your end.

One that’s intuitive and doesn’t require a cheat sheet or what I like to call fingular contortionism discovery.

Language and communication can be difficult; let me clarify for you. My statement was hyperbolic. I’m not talking about literally going to their little book club or questioning them at every single moment in every single conversation, I’m only saying that we should take every sensical opportunity to call them on their bullshit,

The de-normalization of basing one’s actions and behavior on the collective teachings, regardless of source, called a “religion”, without following logic and the scientific method is what needs to occur. We can only make that happen if more engagement occurs.

I disagree. Think global, act local. The best thing would be for every possible person to question these people’s sanity at every opportunity and to stop normalizing belief in invisible sky daddies.