A 'lede' is just an intentionally differentiated spelling of 'lead'; the origin of the word is just lead. Collins dictionary defines lede: a variant spelling of lead

TIL, thank you.

Is it not an intentional spelling in order to coin journalistic jargon?

I think the criticism is less about whether the lede is good at achieving its goal and more about whether that goal is honorable in the first place.

So dismissing it on technicalities is for sure clever but also obvious and lame.

The Letter/spirit thing eventually got boring. Please find better material

I apologise if using words correctly is obvious and lame.

GP is explicitly criticising the language in the lede as being unsuitably vague, hence my reply.

As to the goal of the article, I fail to see what is dishonourable about comparing LLMs. You may consider the methodology flawed, but it's a perfectly respectable goal.

Sorry, was that another technicality? I'll try to find better material, just for you.

There are monied interests that do not want inexpensive Chinese successors to Scam Altman's creation.

They're inexpensive because they're derived from his creation.

The creation--which isn't "his" in the first place, by any standard definition--was not only itself "derived from" our creations but was always supposed to be "open".

> which isn't "his" in the first place, by any standard definition

I was saying that because of the previous comment:

> to Scam Altman's creation

It wasn't derived in the same way though - I can read loads of books and so can write my own book, but that's not derivation in the same way as the Deepseek's derivation.

It’s the hardest part of an article if you ask me.

Filling it with slop constructs signals the reader no effort was made writing the article. So no effort should be put into reading it.

The rest of the article is equally flimsy. Great clickbait title, perhaps that is even harder than writing a lede.

I am not a native speaker :)