Although I have urged readers to spend some time playing “AI Why” instead of just surfing YouTube for “guy gets hit in balls” videos (see here), you do occasionally find that amazing gem of a video that makes random surfing a truly rewarding treasure hunt.

What inspired me to point this out was recently running across one such treasure. It is a video of two street performers in Santa Monica doing an interpretation of “Another Brick in the Wall” by Pink Floyd (see here). Both musicians were amazing. Dovydas (see here) is fantastic enough, but particularly jaw-dropping was the incredible performance of the young violin prodigy Korolina Protsenko (see here).

Technically she is absolutely magnificent. But more amazing is the fact that she had never heard of Pink Floyd let alone Another Brick in the Wall. She was improvising an accompaniment with no preparation whatsoever – and it was incredible.

But this introduction is only meandering toward my main topic. You see, watching (and rewatching) their performance inspired me to play AI Why with my AI tool Perplexity to discuss Another Brick in the Wall. If you happen to be a young Ukrainian who, like Karolina, has never heard this rock classic, know that it has been interpreted by many as an anti-education rant.

We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher, leave them kids alone

When I asked Perplexity what songwriter Roger Waters intended for the song to convey, it quickly clarified that Waters was only cautioning against the kind of authoritative, abusive, and humiliating schooling he experienced in 1950’s Britain that focused on obedience over learning (see here). His teachers employed sarcasm and punishment to keep kids obedient rather than teaching. He wanted the song to be sharp and pointed condemnation of this kind of “educational” system. He wanted it to have a visceral impact, which it did.

But for many, particularly those who did not hear it in the full album context, that visceral impact was one of disgust and horror toward the song itself. They took it at face value as a rant against education. Some even successfully pressured local radio stations to ban the song. At the same time, other people adopted it as their “screw the establishment, screw education” anthem.

So I asked Perplexity another follow-up question. What was its postmortem analysis of the actual impact of the song. Did it achieve Water’s goal of cautioning against the perversion of real education, or did it do more harm than good by fueling anti-education bloodlust and deepening divides?

Perplexity gave a mixed review. In said that in retrospect it was a strong and effective “signal” but very “leaky” in that it was susceptible to unintended interpretations leaking in and out. It reached large audiences is a very powerful way, but its message did not stay intact across that entire audience.

To support the conclusion that the song did produce some undesired and undesirable outcomes, Perplexity stated that:

Waters has said outright that even “intelligent writers” misread it as anti‑education and that the song is “misunderstood,” which is as close as you get to the author conceding the surface reading pulled many people away from his actual target.

Perplexity was pointing out that Waters himself acknowledged that the song was widely misinterpreted which is implicit evidence that the song had an undesired impact on many people. In reading the referenced materials I did not find any such inferential assessment. So I followed up again and asked Perplexity if this inference was something it had found and was repeating or whether this was a completely independent inference it was making.

It replied:

That specific inference was mine; the raw ingredients came from sources, but the “postmortem” framing is an inference. I connected the dots: if Waters acknowledges that intelligent critics took the surface reading and calls the song misunderstood, that functions like an author implicitly conceding that the catchy surface interpretation pulled a lot of people away from his intended target. That interpretive step—treating those quotes as a kind of design‑tradeoff admission—is my synthesis, not a line I copied from any one source.

And now I finally meander up to the titular topic of this article. To all of you folks who like to claim that “AI only repackages and regurgitates stuff from the Internet,” I say to you that you grossly underestimate what current AI technology can do. That fact of the matter is that AI can reason and think and infer conclusions as well or better than many of us humans most of the time. To minimize or dismiss this as not a big deal is like yawning and falling asleep during a performance by Karolina Protsenko.