Ye I expect so, I don’t like the way this author just doesn’t bother explaining her points. She just states that she disagrees and says they should be left to their own rules.

Which is probably fine, but that’s just lazy or she’s not mentioning the difference for another reason

She names Trump’s points explicitly, but doesn’t go beyond “the best practices of this and that institution”.

I can’t say they’re wrong, I expect a scientific institution to have some integrity to say the least. But either she’s too lazy to look them up, or she’s not quoting any for a different reason

Just going by this article I can’t quite tell whether either party has good intentions. Except for that the writer here does not

Roll you own “platinum standard” and see if he buys it :p

It’s easy to deny it’s built on stolen content and difficult to prove. And AI companies know this, and have gotten caught stealing shitty drawings from children and buying user data that should’ve been private

Looks more like a cheezy vista

Not a wasted bin?