>You know a position is indefensible when you equivocation fallacy this hard.
No its quite defensible. And if that was equivocation, you can simply outline that you didn't mean to invoke the specific definition of stealing, but were just using it for its emotive value.
>You know a position is indefensible when you strawman this hard.
Its accurate. No one wants thes LLM guys stopped more than other big fascistic corporations, plenty of oppositional noise out there for you to educate yourself with.
>Sounds about right to me, but why you would state that when defending slop slingers is enough to give me whiplash.
Cool, so if you agree all data should usable to create derivative works then I don't see what your complaint is.
>Where can I find these totally legal, free, and open datasets all of these slop slingers are trained on?
You invoked "strawman" and then hit me with this combo strawman/non sequitur? Cool move <1 day old account, really adds to your 0 credibility.
I literally pointed out they should have to pay the same access fee as anyone else for the data, but once obtained, should be able to use it any way. Reading the comment explains the comment.
Unless, charitably, you are suggesting that if a company is legally able to purchase content, and use it as training data, that somehow compels them to release that data for free themselves?
No its quite defensible. And if that was equivocation, you can simply outline that you didn't mean to invoke the specific definition of stealing, but were just using it for its emotive value.
>You know a position is indefensible when you strawman this hard.
Its accurate. No one wants thes LLM guys stopped more than other big fascistic corporations, plenty of oppositional noise out there for you to educate yourself with.
>Sounds about right to me, but why you would state that when defending slop slingers is enough to give me whiplash.
Cool, so if you agree all data should usable to create derivative works then I don't see what your complaint is.
>Where can I find these totally legal, free, and open datasets all of these slop slingers are trained on?
You invoked "strawman" and then hit me with this combo strawman/non sequitur? Cool move <1 day old account, really adds to your 0 credibility.
I literally pointed out they should have to pay the same access fee as anyone else for the data, but once obtained, should be able to use it any way. Reading the comment explains the comment.
Unless, charitably, you are suggesting that if a company is legally able to purchase content, and use it as training data, that somehow compels them to release that data for free themselves?
Weird take if true.