[Vermeulen]

How can you so confidently say C-18 has no relevance to this - then in the same comment say you don't know enough about the law to comment on it?

If you don't understand C-18 that's fine - but then you can't confidently say that it can't apply to Bard. Seems pretty clear based on how C-18 is written that it absolutely could.

You have the ability to doublethink here to the point of arguing is likely pointless - but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill 'bootlicker's.

[llm_nerd]

"How can you so confidently say C-18 has no relevance to this"

Even Google isn't claiming it is... It is pretty ironic that you repeatedly claim that a bill is directly responsible for it when Google, despite being in a very public fight about it, isn't even claiming this.

"but clearly by saying Google knows they can 'weaponize the bootlicker sorts' you are calling people who criticize this bill "

Clearly I did not. Ever. You are strawmanning in a way that is absolutely agains the spirit of HN and is grossly unproductive. Attacking me as thinking in "doublethink" (because you inject your own strawman interpretations) isn't productive.

Criticize the bill all you want! But if Google throws a tantrum about it because it threatens a revenue pipeline, doing the "See, this is what you get!" bit is being a bootlicker. Mega corps always have the eager sort ready to tow the line for them and do the dirty work for them.

[crazygringo]

You would seem to be the one against the spirit of HN here.

You're calling anyone who might disagree with Canada and agree with Google "bootlicker sorts" (I see no other way to interpret your original comment) and now you're doubling down about people "ready to tow the line for them" and "do the dirty work for them".

That's "grossly counterproductive". Please don't call names or insinuate that commenters are doing "dirty work" here.

You may want to re-read HN guidelines, especially the parts "Edit out swipes", "please reply to the argument instead of calling names", and "Assume good faith."

[llm_nerd]

>You're calling anyone who might disagree with Canada and agree with Google "bootlicker sorts"

Again. Christ. Honest question: How can people so lacking at basic set logic actually function in this field?

If you need to manufacture the position of the person you're "arguing with", take a break from the internet.

Though it's actually telling that a couple of people felt personally attacked by a general statement. I generally referred to people who carry corporate water as bootlickers, and several people took that personally. Maybe that's something to reflect on.

>You may want to re-read HN guidelines

Amazing.

[mrtranscendence]

You say anyone interpreting your earlier statement as being about those who agree with Google lack basic logic, yet you repeatedly say things like this to people defending Google:

> And given that I'm not a pathetic bootlicker, I don't immediately look to rationalize for them.

If you don’t want to imply that you think this about anyone taking Google’s side, maybe use some more nuanced language. Just a suggestion.

Frankly, it seems to me that you want it both ways — to insult people who disagree with you but then hide behind some purely technical sense in which you didn’t.

[Vermeulen]

By saying 'regulatory uncertainty', they are saying the uncertainty of C-18 applying to Bard. Very very clearly. It's a legal risk to them right now. And yet you, who also just said they don't know enough about C-18 to comment on it, knows for certain it wouldn't apply to Bard. Incredible

[llm_nerd]

>Very very clearly.

Except that they never cited the bill in any discussion on this. Such an easy target, but it is never mentioned despite incredibly aggressive lobbying and public posturing by Google. Instead it is the grab all "this government is mean, and if you're a bootlicker you run forth and tell everyone how mean they are!" sort of statement because it can't easily be refuted for being garbage.

So super clear.

And for that matter, amazing C-18 has caused no issues for any of Google's competitors when it comes to LLMs. "Incredible".

>who also just said they don't know enough about C-18 to comment on it

I love that you think this is an attack. I said I don't care enough about it to hold an opinion (much less a strong one), unlike so many. But a corporate tantrum is the most obvious thing in the world, and Google is clearly having a corporate tantrum. And given that I'm not a pathetic bootlicker, I don't immediately look to rationalize for them.

[Vermeulen]

You said you 'didn't know enough about it' to defend it, not that you didn't care, and yet still can say confidently "There is no scenario where C-18 has any relevance to this". There is such clear contradiction to that that arguing with you is definitely pointless.

[llm_nerd]

Yet here you are, many comments deep. Almost like the doublethink / pointless bit is what you think is good debating tactics.

Every comment has a context. When Google decided to bar their second rate product from Canada, C-18 was the motive (as I clearly stated in my root comment), but clearly legally it had no relevance or Google would have actually cited it.

See, corporations love to target specific things. If C-18 prevented BartGPT from coming to Canada, Google would absolutely have cited it given their public fight. But they didn't (despite your claims about how clear this is). Instead they did the classic hand-wavy something-something bit that no legal analysis can actually refute. It riles up the bootlickers, while everyone else is going ???.

It's a tantrum. I am tired of your rhetoric, strawmanning and poor set logic responses so this will be the final time I respond to you.

[Vermeulen]

As a side note, it's funny to call criticism of the governments overreaching bill 'bootlicking'. If there is one boot you should be afraid of stomping on your face it's the governments