I came here to point this out, and it's especially clear if you contextualize this with the original decision from September: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites

I came here to point this out, and it's especially clear if you contextualize this with the original decision from September: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/20-613_1.pdf https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/20-613... They were doing semantic search using embeddings/rerankers. The point that reading both decisions together compounds is that if they had trained a model on the Bulk Memos and generated novel text instead of doing direct searches, there likely would have been enough indirection introduced to prevent a summary judgement and this would have gone to a jury as the September decision states. In other words, from their comment: > But I'm not sure "generative" is that meaningful a distinction here. The judge would not seem to agree at all.