😂

This is really starting to get funny because I feel like you are trying to argue with me but you are just making my point for me.

This... quote from you , this right here is exactly what I am talking about:

"The sources that it provides in general are no different than those that you could find by conducting a search on Google Scholar, or by sharpening you boolean search skills and hitting hard at various databases."

This is democratization of the ability to do concise research that I am talking about. It would be the textbook example. That is the concise part. I couldn't have said it better myself.

You said it and you are absolutely right they are "...in general no different..." And that is the point.

You are slowly getting there. You are slowly slowly getting there.

Now more than ever I very much doubt your claims of any expertise with journalism or tech. No one who had gone to journalism school, and done well, would try to use an appeal to authourity fallacy to support an argument, particularly trying to set themselves up as the "authority", and even worse with such weak bonafides. You were "a journalism major" and you work "in a tech department" that is some weak sauce. That is just laughable. That is not journalism. The fact that you would actually write that paragraph tells me you lack as much experience with journalism as you do with AI.

Notably absent from the paragraph you wrote is the mention of a degree in journalism. Anyone can major in anything. Getting the degree is the hard part and if you had gotten a degree you would have said that. Also noteable is working in a "tech department" that is very noticeably vague. The guy who mops the floor in mission control works at NASA, that doesn't mean he is a rocket scientist.

Maybe you really do work in a "tech department" and you sometimes play with some AI tools. All I can tell you is that you just don't understand them, you don't know how to use them, and you shouldn't be making claims about effacicacy of things you don't understand.