> The flaw in your faulty logic is that you are attributing intent and purpose to a tool rather than the user of the tool.

I'm certainly don't attribute any intent to anything in my reasoning, but yes, most tools have a purpose. Suno's purpose, for example, is clearly to create music based on natural language prompts. Not that I have expressed that before, or that my argument relies on that fact, so whether or not you agree, it's irrelevant to what I'm saying.

> Additionally, you might also be attributing a persona to a static and mindless tool which is also nonsense.

I might? You should respond to my argument, not address things you baselessly think I believe, which is a waste of both our time.

> You literally replied to a comment concerning the possibility of the word "democratize" having innate positive and/or negative meanings.

I replied to say that "democratize" is the wrong word. My argument to that end doesn't hinge on whether democratization is a positive thing or a negative one. This discussion would be much easier if you responded to my points directly instead of trying to mischaracterize my argument as something it is not. Your response here is very light on directly addressing anything I said, and heavy on insisting that I believe things that I don't.

>This discussion would be much easier if you responded to my points directly

I can't because you're talking nonsense.

You are essentially saying that guns commit murder, not the user who shot the gun. You are saying that the tool carries intent and purpose, not the user. It's ridiculous, faulty logic and I cannot respond to that other than to point out it's quackery.