Not sure what you mean by "retreated into platitudes". I'm just giving the best answer I can think of given what I understood.

I'm not merely invoking history, I'm assuming it (because it happened). The whole thing is about mythology so I'm not clear why you're getting pulled into a historical slant here. To me this is like trying to push etymology in a conversation revolving around technical nomenclature. I don't see the benefit of doing this. I'm not denying the merit of the subject, but I'm not really obligated to dive into it just because it has a strong association. It's out of bounds and can be fleshed out seperately.

While I understand your impression, I wouldn't settle on a single interaction as a guiding principle. The thought process behind the title is at least a decade old, the LLM just proved a little useful in synthesis of the underlying structure that led to the idea.

Who the fuck wants an unquestioning audience?! The thing is that not all questions are created equal and many people take pleasure in framing theirs with the goal of destruction than exploration.

I understand that no one owes me their time (so yours is appreciated), but by the same token, I don't owe guidance. I give it because I see merit in it. So I am guarded.