Here’s the full quote:

Case in point: in addition to having to pay a guy who he bet $5 million couldn’t prove him wrong $5 million after that guy proved him wrong, and after he went to court to try to avoid paying the money, Lindell will now have to pay some of that guy’s attorneys fees, which were incurred in court.

There’s nothing technically wrong with it, it’s just really awkwardly worded.

ChatGPT makes you a 10x developer, so using it for one year is like ten years of experience ^/s

On the other hand, spontaneous generation was very much still a thing at this point, so a lot of the basic rules of the world around us were really not worked out yet

Also, this case does not make AI works uncopyrightable - only those that have no human input.

This is really important. The particular case tried a very difficult argument, that works created by machine have copyright regardless of human input, which no serious copyright experts thought would work because it’s been pretty comprehensively litigated that human creativity is required

They also tried to argue the much more plausible theory that the prompt had creativity, and that the copyright flows down from the prompt to the AI-generated work, but the type of suit they brought didn’t permit that argument. That theory still needs to be litigated, and while I would be a bit surprised to see it work, it’s entirely possible it will. So I’m not ready to say all AI-generated work is PD just yet.

Of course, regardless of if what comes out of the AI is PD, you can make enough modifications to a PD work and create something you can copyright. Many people are doing enough “touch-ups” to AI art that the final product is potentially copyrightable. Amusingly, the better the generator, the less the human has to do here, and the weaker the protection becomes.