> I feel my comment tracks extremely well with the sections you cite and that it takes some mental gymnastics to read exactly the link you provided and then act

> I feel my comment tracks extremely well with the sections you cite and that it takes some mental gymnastics to read exactly the link you provided and then act like my comments somehow don’t track. The original criticisms were about failure of source data for large models (eg reddit for GPT) to account for fast shifts in social activism language specifically. I think this is a completely fair summary of the paper. But you described the paper as suggesting that people are "required to agree with or accept woke vocabulary" or previously your criticism was "Nobody is required to accept “wokeness” vocabulary". I don't see how you can justify those criticisms from the paper. They aren't there. There isn't a place where they paper says that anyone needs to use or agree with a particular kind of vocabulary. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but the claims you're making about what the paper says just aren't in the actual document. Hence my question: where are you getting that criticism from? Where does the paper suggest that people need to agree with woke vocabulary? I think it's uncharitable for you to criticize the paper based on a mischaracterization, and so I think it's completely reasonable for me to clarify by what reasoning you came to make that criticism. Because again, despite trying I can't find an interpretation of the paper where your criticism makes sense. I'd implore anyone else reading to look at sections 4.1 and 4.2 as well. They just simply don't say this.