A.I. actually works well by amplifying the intelligence of those using it properly, while understanding its limits and weaknesses, such as when it is wrong. For the user that has limited resources, the results reflect as such. 

You have to know how to give it facts and how to logically argue. You don't know how. You need to stay away from it, but that has no bearing on the immense worth of AI.

So to get a clear answer, you cannot simply ask it a clear question. Got it.

I wonder what St Francis de Sales thinks of the answers AI is supplying on his behalf 🤔😅

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. "

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

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. 

Speculative.

Yes, we are thinking about it. But the point is, the schoolmen, Saints and Doctors, said a pope can become a heretic and immediately cease to be pope. You are saying they should have realized in principle that, immediately, all the Masses in the whole world would become objectively bad because they would still be naming the man in the canon for some time. They should have realized, but didn't realize that? but now we realize it?