[hartator]

> We already know that Copilot as it stands is unacceptable and unjust, from our perspective.

So, why call for white papers? I don’t believe they will publish any papers that go against their views.

[user-the-name]

Read the rest of the paragraph. They think it is unacceptable and unjust from certain perspectives that are trivial for them. However, there are other perspectives that are worth exploring, and that is what this is about.

[humanistbot]

You seem to be unfamiliar with (edit: or object to) the very idea of lawyers.

[pavon]

Just because someone has formed strong opinions about some aspect of a subject, doesn't mean they can't be open minded about another aspect. They plainly state that they don't have clear answers about many of the questions that Copilot raises, and this isn't going to be the last time that those issues appear. It is these broader issues that they want to hold discussions about, not Copilot itself. I don't see any reason not to accept this interest as genuine.

[meepmorp]

They have a position and they now want to support it with arguments, and they'd like it if people would help them do that.

I think that's a backwards because it's putting the conclusion first then seeking to justify it, but to each their own.

[user-the-name]

No, they have a position and arguments to support it, but those have nothing to do with the machine learning aspects, just with the fact that the software is proprietary.

They are asking for views on the machine learning, which they do not have arguments or a position on.

[kelnos]

> I think that's a backwards because it's putting the conclusion first then seeking to justify it

Isn't that literally a lawyer's job?

[meepmorp]

>Isn't that literally a lawyer's job?

I guess, but then they should have their story straight before they start the astroturfing campaign.

[tyingq]

They know a couple of reasons for sure. They want more reasons, or more detail on other reasons for which they aren't as sure yet.