i would add to this that correlation is not the same as causality. also, 'latent truth' assumes a specific philosophical stance that, in my at-least-slightly-incorrect opinion, doesn't really hold water, but is mostly certainly baked into the training of the machine, given its almost ubiquitous presence in modern writing (across many fields).
the second interpretation probably aligns more with my original thought and, while i think the machine does have the potential for novelty, this isn't equivalent to human-made novelty, as that comes from an understanding that is necessarily squeezed through the constrictive aperture of language (as one of the responses mentioned).
the second interpretation probably aligns more with my original thought and, while i think the machine does have the potential for novelty, this isn't equivalent to human-made novelty, as that comes from an understanding that is necessarily squeezed through the constrictive aperture of language (as one of the responses mentioned).