If you don't see a clear difference between the hard sciences of biology/chemistry/medicine and the opinionated "science" of parenting (prescriptive, no less), then you should check your eyes.
I see your point about different qualities of science, but the wording of "highly tuned parental instincts" is still bad. The instincts are the same in both situations, and they're highly flawed. Science should override instincts in lots of situations.
And if you ask basically any kind of science "how do I best accomplish x?", that science will have a "presciptive" answer, so I don't see how parenting science is any more prescriptive then chemistry.
I think the problem is that “transformation” has never been clearly defined in copyright law, and that ambiguity is exactly what AI companies lean on in their defense.
At a human scale, those boundaries get clarified through litigation on a case by case basis once an infringement becomes large or obvious enough. But there has always been a gray area around when a derivative work crosses the line into infringement.
And AI didn’t create that ambiguity, it just pushed it to a more extreme scale
whoever made opening a new tab in safari take three taps, the last of which is in the bottom left of the screen instead of the bottom right, has some explaining to do