I'm not here to argue the morality of those who own giant AI companies because they are surely not good people or on the side of the masses. However, to say this is "not perfect" by design is likely ignorance. You think the reason stories like the ones aforementioned came to fruition were by design? Or is it that it's extremely difficult to create guardrails that will allow for user intent to matter? If I say I'm researching suicide methods because I'm an investigator, and this is true, should I not be able to get this information? But what if I'm not, and I'm actually suicidal? There are millions of possible edge cases for a system that is necessarily probabilistic and with extraordinarily wide applications.

Sure, if you want to redefine terms you can make anything mean anything you want. Who determines what is "harder to explain"? To someone who knows how this stuff works, it is not hard to explain. So do you consider gravity to be magic? Do you consider every piece of technology you use to be magic, since there is not one single person who can explain how every component works in their entirety at the lowest levels of creation? And the trick is, people CAN explain how it works. They can both explain how it works technically AND could trace through specific conversations as well if they had access to the training data, model weights, and an infinite amount of time. So, given that it is possible to explain, is it the fact that it will take a longer time than is feasible to calculate by hand, that makes it your definition of magic? Is pi magic? Is there a reason you choose to focus on the semantics of the word magic instead of actually engaging intellectually?