Like the Romans used to drink from lead cups. Something like that.
(it appears that the moderator is removing any replies with which he disagrees. It might be a piefed issue. But all the removed replies are top level and upopular. Stranger coincidences have happened I suppose.)
Even reading that (atrocious) output is going to influence how you write and speak, because humans learn language via mirroring and imitation. Taking the output as truth also means you are trusting something that is unreliable and easy to influence (I know many companies are deliberately writing to manipulate LLM output).
What’s so atrocious about it?
There are a lot of weird phrasings that indicate it’s not being rigorous with the concepts.
“Allowed” is odd phrasing. Some nebulous entity isn’t allowing it, and “allowed” is too passive; it sitting on top of the wet layer is the whole point. If it’s necessary to expand beyond just “it sits on top” the extra info should be specifying why, otherwise just drop the “allowed” part.
Classic AI hedging by using a disconnected and anthropomorphised phrase. Something like “The solvent evaporates, leaving the greasy oil and wax mixture to […whatever]” would make more sense.
Than what?
A bit more connected than last time. Still not great phrasing.
What stone-chip coat? Is this something well-known I don’t know about or is it trying to describe some property here?
It was never said or implied that it was?
etc.