[customguy]

> Your vague response doesn't seem to have anything to do with the the base subject this whole thing revolves around.

No, I instead refuted your reply.

> but AI doing the same thing at large scale is not ok?

No, humans doing things can be okay or not so okay depending on the scale they do them at. "AI" isn't "doing" anything by itself, at all, so that doesn't enter into it at all. You cannot separate "scale" and "thing". Rubbing your hands to make them warmer is fine, igniting a nuke is not, both aren't "basically the same thing, raising temperature, just at different scales". You didn't reject the premise, you didn't understand it in the first place, and knocked down your own straw man instead. Which I pointed out, that's all.

[Meph504]

Ha, I'm sorry do you think you've made a logical point by comparing rubbing your hands together, and "igniting a nuke."

Again, this isn't a "this at small scale is ok, but at large scale it isn't" argument. Small scale plagiarism isn't acceptable, neither is large scale.

You are refuting my reply seemingly without the context of the article, and larger issue at hand.

Don't be condescending when you aren't even accurately a following the original premise or purpose.

[customguy]

The context of this subthread is explaining that

> If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale.

is a fallacy. Which it is. You confirm this by apparently seeing a difference between generating a little bit of heat and a whole lot, to name one of infinite examples anyone can easily come up with.

> Again, this isn't a "this at small scale is ok, but at large scale it isn't" argument.

You just keep doing the thing I pointed out in my first reply, you claim "it's not this" on a technicality, and then say "so therefore it's this instead", and the other thing is a criticism nobody brings up, ever.

And it gains you nothing, because if plagiarism isn't even okay at small scale, surely you can see how it's even less okay at big scale.