Are you really pushing AI apologism to the point of calling "anality" the concerns of experienced historians? How does this contribute to a reasonable discussio

Are you really pushing AI apologism to the point of calling "anality" the concerns of experienced historians? How does this contribute to a reasonable discussion about the dangers of what this video might represent? I would understand (and not agree) if you said you don't think the videos are dangerous or problematic, but dismissing valid concerns from subject matter experts is just pure tech hybris. And that's quite scary, to be honest, to see how many people already subscribe to this complete lack of critical discussion on the AI video trend. These videos are viral traps made to make money. They have absolutely no historic base, and yet they are presented as such on social media. I don't care what the authors say, because that's not what 53 million people read when they just see a video that's absolutely inaccurate.