Technology

You mean, I’m making an argument. Because yes. I am. I don’t see why this negative framing is necessary nor why this is noteworthy enough to bring up, unless you really just want to make me look bad for no apparent reason.

I don't understand how you expect me to not point out that you are using inequivalent concepts interchangeably and reaching conclusions different to what you initially stated.

No, seriously this the only part of the comment that is relevant:

They are what the AI is designed to extract, not Mario as a totality.

And it is stated as fact, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Here I'll make it simple. Do you disagree on any of the below statements?

• There is a combination of elements that is protected by copyright regardless of whether any completely individual element would be protected. This "Mario-ness" or "totality of Mario" or whatever you want to call it.
• The Mario picture contains the "Mario-ness".
• The prompt does not include most of those elements and very clearly does not contain the "Mario-ness".

If any of the above seem false to you, explain why. Otherwise explain where this Mario-ness in the image came from. Explain how your answer relates to the initial statement that models detect empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.

That is the only thing that would be on topic. Everything else is just rambling. If you don't argue in favor of your position I reacted to, or if you don't understand the counter-point and respond clearly to it, then why are you replying to me at all?