But you could have said something along the lines of “LLM companies steal data, don’t accidentally give credence to the marketing idea that these things are sentient”

I guess this place is too toxic to even use correct phrasing.

I feel you on a daily basis here, however I do think you could consider what the tone of your first response was like. There are a lot of AI supporters out there and I genuinely think you sounded like one there.

"LLMs stole art" is shorthand for "the people who made the LLMs stole the art and put it into their datasets to generate shitty images". we don't want to type that every time.

I fully agree with you that humans are the culprit here. And you're right, words do have meaning. So I'm going to point out you took an active action "stealing" to the passive voices "fed" and "invoked" and "trained." Yet you never said humans "stole." Because they did. They are thieves who are stealing and profiting on other people's intellectual property. Even if other commenters can't name why they are upset, that's why. It's the same thing that pisses people off when news articles do the same thing depending on which groups they are talking about. Without meaning to your language softens when you talked about the human actions for the exact same acts. It's a bias. One I'm sure you're not aware you're doing. I've honestly noticed a lot of people doing it. We all need to work on recognizing when we are unnecessarily softening our language for any group in power. We need to call them out for the thieving shitheads that they are with bold language. "Billionaires are stealing art." Because they fucking are.