You keep saying things that show you don't really understand what is happening.

You keep saying that, yet you don't give any indication of why you think that I am wrong.

Having coauthored a 4th year Software Engineering dissertation in which we compiled and trained a Convolutional Neural Network, I am fairly confident of my understanding of the subject. If I am wrong and there are no neurons or no complex interactions, I'd love to know. Please, I welcome your detailed critique.

That's a disingenuous reduction of the argument I posed to you.

What did you say? Oh, it is right here!

This thing can only copy.

The essence of your argument is: Neural Networks can only copy and not create anything original. It follows that what they do is an infringement of copyright, because you can recognize the style that is being aped.

I think my summation of your argument is succinct.

You know guy, for all your butthurt and bluster you have yet to provide any countervailing facts. You have done a bunch of quibbling over definitions, to your own benefit, but you haven't actually presented any alternatives beyond "I said so".

Now you've devolved to insults.

I guess we both know that your position isn't actually based on reason, huh?

Have a great day.