This is such a silly and trivially debunked claim. I'm shocked it comes up so frequently.
These systems can generate novel content. They manifestly haven't just memorized a bunch of stuff.
These systems can generate novel content. They manifestly haven't just memorized a bunch of stuff.
1) Copying existing bridges 2) Merging concepts from multiple existing bridges in a novel way with much less effort then a human would take to do the same. 3) Understanding the underlying physics and generating novel solutions to building a bridge
The difference between 2 and 3 isn't necessarily the output but how it got to that output; focusing on the output, the lines are blurry. If the AI is able to explain why it came to a solution you can tease out the differences between 2 and 3. And it's probably arguable that for many subject matters (most art?) the difference between 2 and 3 might not matter all that much. But you wouldn't want an AI to design a new bridge unsupervised without knowing if it was following method 2 or method 3.
How much of this stuff is just a realization of the classic "infinite monkeys and typewriters" concept?