No. Apple's paper is just wrong, and so is Gary Marcus.
How they conducted their tests inherently limited the models.
Their findings were not due to a lack of thinking ability, but to testing errors. More specifically, overly restrictive token limits and problematic formatting.
x.com/kimmonismus/...

Never seen any sign of that.
They're neither a hate group, unless you count hate for nonconsensual mutilation, nor antisemites.
There's plenty of reasons to view infant circumcision as a horrible practice, without any antisemitism coming into it.
The benefits are exaggerated, while harms downplayed.

Why does it matter whether one uses descriptive writing skill to build an image, instead of muscle skill? They're still expressing their imagination.
Nearly all art tools were created to reduce the time & effort needed, to bring something from our imaginations, into the real world for others to see.

Some people felt that way about Digital Art & CG, not too long ago..
imgur.com/a/9UCD31m

To clarify my use of ANY, since some wanna nitpick & it was a bit excessive.
What we call Gen AI today, certainly did not exist in 2016.
No one could've predicted, just 5 years later we'd be able to TYPE DESCRIPTIONS into an AI, to get images & video. That was the stuff of Star Trek, 100 years away!

Don't be disingenuous.
Effectively, what we call gen AI today, did not exist in 2016. It doesn't matter what existed in backroom research, in some vague form.
NOBODY would've predicted these capabilities coming for decades, back then.
My point is the gross visual impacted the opinions that followed.

Optimistically, I'd like to hope that an AI Dividend would transition our economy (and mindsets) from capitalism, to something more fair, where creativity & human-to-human interactions are more valued, and survival isn't paywalled.
Could look something like this:
www.scottsantens.com/ai-will-rapi...

We cannot stop progress in AI, or stop it from taking over the economy, due to the nature of capitalism. Thus all progress WILL lead to difficult questions.
The issue you bring up NEEDS to be addressed on a societal level!
We should tax profits from AI, to provide everyone an AI Prosperity Dividend.

Nobody needs to "sign off" for others to replicate an art style.
Styles/looks cannot and should not be protected, otherwise that kills all fan art & future inspiration.
Additionally, results like these could theoretically be achieved through training on look-alike art & fan art, with no way to tell.

Maybe, but they weren't good enough to upset ppl.
If he were reacting to those in the video, that would be one thing.
But he was clearly reacting to the disturbing visuals they showed him. That AI was involved in an indirect way, to evolve the 'movements' is entirely inconsequential to his reaction.

Watch more of the actual context, he thought it was disrespectful to the disabled.
He wasn't even reacting to any AI aspect of it. He was reacting in disgust to zombie ragdolls twitching & flopping around in a game engine.
So the way it's being used IS misinformation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0...

Doesn't matter, that claim is disingenuous.
You're just making assumptions you want.
If you actually watched the full video to see what they were showing him, you cannot imply he was speaking generally about AI!
The twitching bodies are what disturbed him, he saw it as insulting his disabled friend.

bsky.app/profile/did:...

Why does that matter? Not relevant.
AI uses significantly less "water & energy" than the anti-ai crowd has been falsely claiming for the last year.
The amount of energy used when someone generates images, is much less than they'd use to play video games during the same time, using the same hardware.

FYI, that was from 2016, long before "generative AI" existed, in ANY form.
He was reacting to an entirely different form of "AI", an evolutionary animation project that controlled zombie ragdoll models in a physics sim.
Their movements disturbed Miyazaki, he thought they were insulting the disabled.

AI's energy usage is being overly exaggerated by those looking for ways to demonize it.
Running AI models on a home PC takes less energy than using the same PC for gaming.
Whether we're talking about energy, water or carbon, AI uses far less than existing things we do.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Maybe, but that make sense, text data is smaller than image data after all.
Generating an AI image still uses less energy than most other things we do with technology.
People can run AI models at home, using less energy for less time, than it takes to play video games.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...