> The analysis you're citing is just that -- a statistical analysis. They had some people use the thing for a while, and concluded "Hey look, it doesn't seem to

> The analysis you're citing is just that -- a statistical analysis. They had some people use the thing for a while, and concluded "Hey look, it doesn't seem to quote verbatim very often. Yay!" There is nothing in there that describes any sort of mitigation. > The three sentences about an attribution search at the very end are aspirational at best, and are presented as "obvious" even though it's not at all clear that such a fuzzy search can be implemented reliably. I agree with all of this, though I do think that the attribution strategy they describe sounds a lot easier than solving the halting problem or entirely eliminating recitation in their model. Obviously, the proof will be in the pudding. Maybe you and others are reacting to them framing this as "research", as if they're trying to prove some fundamental property of their model rather than simply harden it against legally questionable behavior in a more practical sense. I think a statistical analysis is fine for the latter, assuming the sample is large enough.