I think you start to hit philosophical limits with applying restrictions on eager beaver "AI", things like "is there an objective truth" matter when you start trying to decide what a "nonsense question" or "stupid requirement" is.
I'd rather the AI push back and ask clarifying questions, rather than spit out a valid-looking response that is not valid and could never be valid. For example.
I was going to write something up about this topic but it is surprisingly difficult. I also don't have any concrete examples jumping to mind, but really think how many questions could honestly be responded to with "it depends" - like my kid asked me how much milk should a person drink in a day. It depends: ask a vegan, a Hindu, a doctor, and a dairy farmer. Which answer is correct? The kid is really good at asking simple questions that absolutely do not have simple answers when my goal is to convey as much context and correct information as possible.
Furthermore, just because an answer appears in context more often in the training data doesn't mean it's (more) correct. Asserting it is, is fallacious.
So we get to the point, again, where creativite output is being commoditized, I guess - which explains their reasoning for your final paragraph.
> I also don't have any concrete examples jumping to mind
I do (and I may get publicly shamed and shunned for admitting I do such a thing): figuring out how to fix parenthesis matching errors in Clojure code that it's generated.
One coding agent I've used is so bad at this that it falls back to rewriting entire functions and will not recognise that it is probably never going to fix the problem. It just keeps burning rainforest trying one stupid approach after another.
Yes, I realise that this is not a philosophical question, even though it is philosophically repugnant (and objectively so). I am being facetious and trying to work through the PTSD I acquired from the above exercise.