Even if we accept it's wrong (which I suspect is me being unclear: I wasn't suggesting MP3 is some kind of trained algorithm, just that humans developed it while testing on a range of music—which is well documented, with Tom's Diner famously being the first song encoded—which is how any such product gets developed, I accept the context makes it read like I was implying something else, my bad), I give a separate examples with varying degrees of similarity to training and then make my own comments, I explicitly say after this that I don't think the MP3 example is very comparable.

While I get why you'd read what I said that way given context, I wasn't clear, maybe don't reject my entire post immediately after making an assumption about my point barely any way into it.