you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Why don't you tell us what happened, then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    “This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,” Chhabria said. “It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.”

    Still quite a bullshit ruling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Well, no. If I sue you for defamation and provide evidence that you kick puppies for fun. The ruling doesn't prove that kicking puppies for fun is ok or that you didn't commit defamation, just that I have a bad lawyer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Would you prefer that judges rule however they prefer even with no evidence to support the ruling was presented?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I'd prefer that you understood what "bullshit" means

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    And I prefer that you did but alas

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Precisely. I don't know why you expect replies above the kindergarden level when your comments are kindergarden level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments