Regarding your first paragraph. It evades what I wrote about it being more of a tool for inspiration and/or being used as a psychotechnology. In other words, it is indeed still up to the human to separate the wheat from the chaff and plant those "seeds" you mentioned earlier.

Regarding the second paragraph, I do believe that comparing it to a parrot is a strawman. Especially for bigger and more advanced language models than the one I used as a proof of concept. As for the probability of it being (un)productive, isn't that the case for many things in life? This is especially true for scientists that have thousands of failed experiments where only one that is successful advances us further. Nonetheless, I would prefer us speaking with each other and bouncing ideas rather than texting with a bot on any day.

As for being (i)responsible, nowhere did I say that it outputs profound things nor would it be intellectually honest to deny it as we are dealing with probabilities that aren't apparent to us. That also informs me that you probably didn't read the full article linked in my post.