I apologise if using words correctly is obvious and lame.
GP is explicitly criticising the language in the lede as being unsuitably vague, hence my reply.
As to the goal of the article, I fail to see what is dishonourable about comparing LLMs. You may consider the methodology flawed, but it's a perfectly respectable goal.
Sorry, was that another technicality? I'll try to find better material, just for you.
There are monied interests that do not want inexpensive Chinese successors to Scam Altman's creation.
They're inexpensive because they're derived from his creation.
The creation--which isn't "his" in the first place, by any standard definition--was not only itself "derived from" our creations but was always supposed to be "open".
> which isn't "his" in the first place, by any standard definition
I was saying that because of the previous comment:
> to Scam Altman's creation
It wasn't derived in the same way though - I read loads of books and now I can write my own book, but that's not derivation in the same way.