Why though?
We have writing, artifacts and objects from ancient peoples which we then use to try to construct historiographies of those cultures, as well as interpretations of their lived experience and circumstances.
This is just doing it for specific historical figures with a different type of technology. Why is it more disrespectful than what historians do?
Because this is placing words in their mouth and pretending it’s something they’d say, not just analyzing it. It pretends in knows their inner world and mind when we only have public artifacts.
Historians also generally adhere to a standard when making a claim, not throwing it to the math machine for regurgitating.
If I said something like "socrates might have asked..." as so many many many people and articles and people have said before me...?
I don't see you in the comment section of all those articles that engagegd in such behavior; naming Socrates as the inspiration of their inquistion.
Why now? Why here?
Because it's generating that output using a simulacra, which may mislead and act as if it is Socrates, not using real human reasoning to extrapolate.
There isn't an objective right or wrong here, but it just strikes me as gross. It's fine if you disagree and I appreciate you interrogating the reasons as it helps us both strengthen our thinking.