Cached responses are healthy and natural, and they aren’t any more likely to be wrong than well-reasoned arguments.

Like, suppose you were planning a dinner party with friends. One of them goes “person X? Ugh, can we not invite them?”, to which another friend goes into a long argument about why person X is totally better now. The first friend can’t really articulate what’s wrong, they just have a shitty feeling, and the arguments they use to explain that feeling are weak and full of holes. Which friend’s judgment would you be more inclined to trust?

I for one would trust the friend with the feeling rather than the friend with the clearly reasoned argument 9 times out of 10.

And so it is with LLMs/genAI. The reflexive repulsion towards them and towards people supporting them is well-earned. It’s healthy for people to set boundaries conservatively when so many genAI proponents are trying to weasel their way into acceptability with bad-faith comparisons, deliberate violation of “no genAI” boundaries as a form of gotcha, and a systematic lack of integration of critiques of genAI when trying to find new implementations. The Luddites were right, and so are anti-AI movements.

All of which is to say, I think you got a false positive here, but you’ll get 'em next time.

(You are correct that people do keep thinking about stuff and adding the impressions of those thoughts to the cached response. The analogy of a archive isn’t quite correct, it’s more like a giant pile of complaints that keeps getting added on to, that you need to shovel through to get back to that good point you heard 524 days ago, if it hasn’t disintegrated into abstract impression. I don’t think this changes the fundamental point, though, that usually the best reasons people have for believing something are not stored in their brain in a legible, rational format, and so the best actions - such as opposition to LLMs - are driven by emotional impression rather than thought).