Seems fair to me, they're a nonprofit that exists in our lived reality and not an abusive monopolist that can literally throw a billion dollars to subsidize loss leaders.

All it shows the world is why there needs to be a VAT like tax against US digital services to help drive a public option for developers.

There's no reason why the people can't make our own solutions rather than be confined to abusive private US tech platforms.

This company is part of the portfolio of a $trillion+ transnational corporation. The idea that we can't judge them, when they clearly have more resources than 99% of other companies on this planet, doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

Why defend a company that clearly doesn't care about its customers and see them as a money spigot to suck dry?

"Clean room" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Having the entire corpus of knowledge for humanity and how LLMs work, how can you honestly argue in court that this is purely clean room implementation?

This is right up there with Meta lawyers claiming that when they torrent it's totally legal but when a single person torrents it's copyright infringement.

Yes, as we all know that unsourced unsubstantiated statements are the best way to verify claims regarding engineering practices. Especially when said person has a financial stake in the outcomes of said claims.

No conflict of interest here at all!