No, you don't got it. It depends on the question.
You aren't capable, so don't blame the system you cannot use correctly.

I'm not blaming anything, I agree with you: "It depends on the question." I've been saying that all along. 

One question is not always sufficient because the database needs to be fed facts and a direction often.

Give it Mortalium Animos and Vatican II and it says Vatican II did not comply with it.

Then give it a specific paragraph, like the second one from that 1928 encyclical along with what St. Francis de Sales said about a pope becoming an explicit heretic and tell it to make its own conclusion and it says that the pope of Vatican II ceased to be pope. It's called syllogistic logical, a basic of reasoning and our conscience.

I would guess that over 98% of Catholics have never heard of Moratalium Animos, or Quo Primum, or Pascendi Dominici Gregis, or even Lumen Gentium for that matter. Or if they did, no way would they direct AI to interpret a specific sentence or paragraph and apply that interpretation to a specific pope. Why would they? That's ridiculous.
 
If they ask it a question at all, they're going too what I did - ask a point blank, clear question, period.  

So, I am unclear how your chat with "Francis" would aid them, or what exactly you think your question answers that mine doesn't?

Ask how what St. Francis de Sales wrote fits in with the intention of the lay sede assisting at an R&R mass:


"The  Council  does  not  say that  it  is  necessary  to  have  the  particular  intention of  the  Church  (for  otherwise  Calvinists,  who  have  no  intention  in  Baptism  of  taking  away  original  sin, would  not  baptize  rightly  since  the  Church  has  that  intention)  but  only  the  intention  of  doing  in  general what  the  Church  does  when  she  baptizes,  without  particularising  or  determining  the  what  or  the  how. "

"Again,  the  Council  does  not  say  that  it  is  necessary to  mean  to  do  what  the  Church  of  Rome  does, but  only  in  general  what  the  Church  does,  without particularising  which  is  the  true  Church.  Yea  if  a man,  thinking  that  the  pretended  Church  of  Geneva was  the  true  Church,  should  limit  his  intention  to the  intention  of  the  Church  of  Geneva,  he  would indeed  be  in  error  if  ever  man  was  in  error,  in  his knowledge  of  the  true  Church ;  but  his  intention would  be  sufficient  in  this  point,  since,  although  it would  point  to  the  idea  of  a  counterfeit  Church,  still it  would  only  have  its  real  significance  in  the  idea  of the  true  Church,  and  the  error  would  only  be  material, not,  as  our  Doctors  say,  formal. "

If you know, a manifest heretic is being named the Canon - you cannot go. If he is a "sede" he KNOWS. One cannot ignore a certain conscience, and if you know the one so-named is not pope - it is a lie and a profanation.

If you read the quote, this was about Protestant baptisms and how they would be materially wrong about where the true Church is but they FORMALLY believe in a true Church. Even though we know they are materially wrong, they are formally right which is why we would be allowed to participate and unite ourselves with one of them if they had to perform an emergency Baptism on a Catholic. If it were intrinsically wrong, the Church wouldn't allow such a thing, which means it is NOT intrinsically wrong for there to be material error, but be formally correct. It's the same with a sede going to a Mass with the wrong pope accidentally mentioned - they are materially wrong, but formally correct in wanting to abide by the rule of the Church to name a true pope, and this is not instrinsically evil.

My last question is referring to this by St. Francis:

"The  Council  does  not  say that  it  is  necessary  to  have  the  particular  intention of  the  Church  (for  otherwise  Calvinists,  who  have  no  intention  in  Baptism  of  taking  away  original  sin, would  not  baptize  rightly  since  the  Church  has  that  intention)  but  only  the  intention  of  doing  in  general what  the  Church  does  when  she  baptizes,  without  particularising  or  determining  the  what  or  the  how. "

"Again,  the  Council  does  not  say  that  it  is  necessary to  mean  to  do  what  the  Church  of  Rome  does, but  only  in  general  what  the  Church  does,  without particularising  which  is  the  true  Church.  Yea  if  a man,  thinking  that  the  pretended  Church  of  Geneva was  the  true  Church,  should  limit  his  intention  to the  intention  of  the  Church  of  Geneva,  he  would indeed  be  in  error  if  ever  man  was  in  error,  in  his knowledge  of  the  true  Church ;  but  his  intention would  be  sufficient  in  this  point,  since,  although  it would  point  to  the  idea  of  a  counterfeit  Church,  still it  would  only  have  its  real  significance  in  the  idea  of the  true  Church,  and  the  error  would  only  be  material, not,  as  our  Doctors  say,  formal. "

It's the cyber format the computer system works with for our natural convenience.

Just hope people don't start treating AI like the world treats cats and dogs!

.

It makes a lot more sense to talk to your cat or your dog than to talk to your computer and think you are having a rational conversation with it to the extent of putting its words into a forum for people to comment on.

First of all, animals in general and especially pets can pick up on their owners' emotions and respond to them to some extent on a physical level. It's not like they are completely oblivious to what their owner is saying. Their interaction with their owner or with other human beings is real on that level. Also, when people talk to their dog or cat, the conversation is usually one-sided. People talk to their dog, but don't expect the dog to respond except to express emotion to react to the emotion of the human. So no one repeats what their dog wags with his tail when they talk to it.

So it's a lot more normal and reasonable to talk to a dog or cat than to talk to a computer and think the computer is actually interacting with you like a living thing. AI is nothing but a glorified search engine, so it makes no sense to think it's a "conversation" to talk to it.

You might as well upload conversations you have with your Magic Eight Ball.