[Vermeulen]

"if they scrape and present their content" - and you don't think this is relevant to Bard? It's less them 'punishing' Canada, and more being uncertain how these insane linking laws will be applied to this new technology. If Bard can summarize a News article from Canada that is very relevant to C-18.

Funny to call criticism of this bill 'bootlicker sorts' - when really your then defending the governments protection of the Canadian media oligarchy

[llm_nerd]

>and you don't think this is relevant to Bard?

Every LLM has serious copyright concerns that manifest in every nation on the planet. There is no scenario where C-18 has any relevance to this. They're all going to be sued by everyone all over the place and we'll see how it ends up.

>when really your then defending the governments protection of the Canadian media oligarchy

I have almost zero interest in the C-18 discussion. It has appeared on here countless times and I have made zero comments on it. I do chuckle when I see people say obviously nonsensical things (a common one is that Google makes no money from scraping news -- if Google is doing something, they are, or are trying to, make money from it), but whatever.

Even in this discussion I haven't defended the law whatsoever, as I just don't know enough about it. And nowhere did I say that criticism of it makes someone a bootlicker, so this is all a strawman regardless.

[Vermeulen]

How can you so confidently say C-18 has no relevance to this - then in the same comment say you don't know enough about the law to comment on it?

If you don't understand C-18 that's fine - but then you can't confidently say that it can't apply to Bard. Seems pretty clear based on how C-18 is written that it absolutely could.

You have the ability to doublethink here to the point of arguing is likely pointless - but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill 'bootlicker's.