> I think you missed my point. "Caching" output by training a more efficient / cheaper model with that output is in fact against their ToS. In my simple brain that is a form of caching.

If that was your point, I'm pretty sure everyone missed it. No one is training models as a form of caching their previous responses. They want to improve the quality of responses they haven't generated yet. That's not caching.

> I've not made anything up.

You said customers don't own the output; they do. I said you made most of it up, and you did. Including your apparent retconning of your original point.

> If that was your point, I'm pretty sure everyone missed it. No one is training models as a form of caching their previous responses. They want to improve the quality of responses they haven't generated yet. That's not caching.

So... You didn't read the article of which you're commenting in?

> You said customers don't own the output; they do. I said you made most of it up, and you did.

You don't own it. If I own something, I can do whatever I want with it. This is just like your iPhone. You don't actually own it, because you can only do with it what Apple allows you to do.

> Including your apparent retconning of your original point.

Wow, enjoy your day. Your misunderstanding is, apparently, my "retconning". Maybe read the original piece you're responding to within the thread.

Did I read the article? You mean the tweet? If you're saying it supports your claim that fine-tuning a model is equivalent to caching, you are mistaken.

> If I own something, I can do whatever I want with it

BRB digitizing my entire media collection and uploading it to the public internet.