This careless interpretation (if you can even call it that) completely misrepresents the meaning of the original work. It represents the idea of using a delicate touch to handle something with the idea of punching it like a child would instead. As another song by them put it:
“Don’t feed the people
But we feed the machines”
AI, by its very nature, is incapable of capturing the human condition.
No matter how extensive its datasets, this will never change. This is because the human condition is just that, flawed and twisted and emotional, in all the ways humans are, and all the ways programs fundamentally cannot be.
A computer program’s only goal is to do what it is programmed to do perfectly. An issue arises when it tries to copy, or augment the human condition perfectly.
How can you perfectly augment something that is, by its very nature, unpredictably imperfect?
This is why AI created “art” is so uncanny and soulless; you cannot augment the human condition.
I think there’s also the notion that people won’t invest emotional time for nothing. It has to be part of a larger transaction with a human being. Even if the transaction is extremely lopsided, as in “I love Taylor swift but she doesn’t know I exist”, it still has to have a human recipient.
A good analogy is psychotherapy. 99% of the work is done by the patient, but it just doesn’t work without the other human. The process absolutely requires an ape to meet with another ape for anything to happen. It would work better with an untrained psychologist, than with the best fine tuned “almost-AGI” model. It’s not about performance it’s really existential. The concept of therapy doesn’t do anything for your brain just like the concept of a strawberry doesn’t do anything for your mouth.
Just like the concept of a rock song or a painting doesn’t do anything for your soul.