So your full of shit. Got it.

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.

because writing is a good skill to have professionally.

also, you have the itch, so why care if people read?

do it for you then!