> In answer to a post suggesting that training on a datapoint could mean plagiarism, you said that this would imply that all outputs are plagiarized.
We read the original differently. As clearly stated in my previous reply to you, I interpret it as claiming that all outputs are necessarily plagiarizations of the training data. That is not my claim (as you wrongly stated) rather it is the claim I am responding to. I observe that it is absurd to object to a single action being a transgression on the basis of an argument which implies that all actions are inherently transgressions. Notice that nowhere do I take a position on whether or not the argument about all actions being transgressions is true or false.
> you appear to believe that ...
I do not, no. I have not taken a position of my own here. I've merely objected that the one I responded to does not make for a sensible line of argument in context. It seems that you (and many others) have read my objection to position A as support for position B and attempted to infer what I think from that.
I simply do not see how you can interpret "if they do not deny training on them, they can't deny plagiarism" as "all outputs are necessarily plagiarizations of the training data".
There is a difference between claiming an action is a transgression, and claiming it could be one.
We read the original differently. As clearly stated in my previous reply to you, I interpret it as claiming that all outputs are necessarily plagiarizations of the training data. That is not my claim (as you wrongly stated) rather it is the claim I am responding to. I observe that it is absurd to object to a single action being a transgression on the basis of an argument which implies that all actions are inherently transgressions. Notice that nowhere do I take a position on whether or not the argument about all actions being transgressions is true or false.
> you appear to believe that ...
I do not, no. I have not taken a position of my own here. I've merely objected that the one I responded to does not make for a sensible line of argument in context. It seems that you (and many others) have read my objection to position A as support for position B and attempted to infer what I think from that.