I guess they need more funding and grants. A human does not need to ingest the entire Internet in order to plagiarize what was read. A human does not need a prompt in order to take action. Two humans can have a conversation that does not collapse immediately.
These people apparently need coaching on the most basic activities. How to solve this in the future? Perhaps women should refuse to procreate with "AI" researchers, who prefer machines anyway.
Humans spend years training 24/7 before they can do anything useful. People train even during their sleep, in their dreams. And on top of that, we transmit culture to other people, which accelerate their training.
And that's with the huge "pre-training" data stored in our genetic code (comprising billions of years and evolution), alongside epigenetic inheritance.
“Hidden ingredients” ==> none of them understand how and why any of this works (or not). They could be easily defeated by Harry Potter, because he understands magic!
> This led the court to conclude that the “[a]uthors’ complaint is no different than it would be if they complained that training schoolchildren to write well would result in an explosion of competing works.”
Your "ideas" are just regurgitations of things you read off the internet; you have no coherent theory of "creativity" beyond some ineffable reference to the sanctity of the human soul.
I guess they need more funding and grants. A human does not need to ingest the entire Internet in order to plagiarize what was read. A human does not need a prompt in order to take action. Two humans can have a conversation that does not collapse immediately.
These people apparently need coaching on the most basic activities. How to solve this in the future? Perhaps women should refuse to procreate with "AI" researchers, who prefer machines anyway.