No, I was not convinced to start with and am getting less convinced all the time. To explain I'll go back to the middle ages. This was a time when the average p

No, I was not convinced to start with and am getting less convinced all the time. To explain I'll go back to the middle ages. This was a time when the average person did not have access to books and the books which were in existence mostly were related to religion. That in itself was not that much of a problem since religion was the guiding line in most of people's lives but what was a problem was that those who wanted to know about what those books contained had to go through a middle man - an ecclesiastic - to get an interpretation. This gave those middle men enormous power which many of them wielded to their advantage, something which eventually led to a schism inside the ecclesiastical world when one of them nailed a pamphlet to a church door deriding the excesses of his world. When books became more generally available and with that literacy became a thing the world changed for what it seemed to be for good... ...until the rise of the new ecclesiastical class? These models are biased in several ways with the training set defining their world view and those who train them intervening in specific areas to bend the output to their will. They can be made to negate the old dictum of garbage in, garbage out to garbage in, gospel out - where the gospel follows whatever the (small-c) creator thinks the populace should know and (in extension) think. In short I don't trust these models any further than I can throw them.