I think the verdict misses the point of what "knowledge" actually means in the context of AI's role. The claim isn't about market size or data diversity—it's about the *source* of new insights. If AI is generating the majority of new ideas, even if they’re not "diverse" in the traditional sense, they’re still shaping the direction of human understanding. Knowledge isn’t just what humans create; it’s what gets accepted, used, and built upon. If AI is the main driver of that process, then it’s no longer just "human knowledge" — it’s the new baseline. The verdict treats knowledge as if it’s static, but it’s evolving, and AI is becoming part of that evolution.