wholookshere

Removed by mod

okay, repeating an unverified claim is better?

You claim

https://vger.to/lemmy.ml/comment/24346212

That its completlt rewritten, with the implication that its not using the project as input.

So yes, you do should back that up

That’s valid in a debate, but not quite how courts work?

I’m not a lawyer, just someone petty enough to read laws.

The discovery requests in the law suit will require yo turn over all training data. From there, it will be up to the AI makers to prove that it wasn’t used, if it was fed into training data. Which if it was open source, almost certainly was.

That as side.

Your making an equal claim that it wasn’t. With an equal amount of proof. So what your sating bears as much weight as the other person.

okay, you have to be able to prove the LLM didn’t learn off of the original source material. Because if it is, its dertivitve work, making it subject to LGPL.

Totally on that page with you.

But there’s a lot of people who will come say that, but only comment on China related calls, which reaks of “all lives matter” level of disingenuous.

No, OP is a troll.

I’ll bite.

How often do you comment that on non Chinese cars?

A lot of ads also run on conversion. Some and networks don’t charge right away until a user converts.

but it still restarts at all.

Thank you for coming with more sources.

What do you think an intentional leak is?

No your point is that your trying to be the loudest voice.

All you have are insults instead of anything of substance.

Have the day you deserve.

The last section specifically calls out an apple example

Provoking, the fourth type of leak, involves companies leaking truthful information in the hopes of obtaining useful information. In “How Apple Does Controlled Leaks” John Martellaro suggests that before launching the iPad, Apple may have released tablet information early for several reasons including wanting to gauge reaction to a US$1,000 price point; to panic or confuse competitors; or to whet analyst expectations. Hannah et al. caution that provoking could backfire if affected parties act on information they assume to be final but that subsequently turns out not to be, negatively affecting a company’s reputation.

Source in article

https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/the-art-of-deliberately-leaking-corporate-secrets_b_8743858

No, it starts months before with teases and leaks.

Also like, you agree you knew what was in the envelope, you think that was an accident?

Do you have something to say there wasn’t planning? Because that’s your claim with 0 evidence, which beats their something.

Okay, but can you see how that’s not actually what you said?

You just called it stupid.

But with hindsight, do you think that carrier deployment unrelated?

Because if it is, then some planning went into it.

do you really think marketing starts at a launch? people have to know what’s going to be announced to be excited to watch.

of course leaks are a part of that.

what? not them but they did add a source as early as January 29th.

I’m lost, how is that redefining stupid?