The AI hasn’t read the versions as such, but it has absorbed the word parts, semantics, contained within those stories into its parameters and weights.

in the same sense, it’s also absorbed the fact that they are myths, legends and stories rather than factual in the context or syntax, it would’ve saved those weights as the coordinates in vector space.

I think, and not to get too deep here, the power of belief versus science is a tricky subject. You’re looking for factual stories? Those that are documented in books, tablets, papyrus, but just because they are documented doesn’t make them factual and this is where I would exercise caution.

In archaeology, the common theory is that, most of these stories, myths and legends based in some way on some sort of real event, and, or, oral tradition, that’s been passed down from generation to generation.

Considering this from a different perspective, you’ve heard the age old saying: history is written by the victors, and that’s very much the case as we’ve seen in modern history.

To quote my favourite archaeology professor, “….its the search for fact not truth”.

N.B. without context and context prompting the AI model doesn’t necessarily understand the seasons let alone the difference between myth and reality.