By saying 'regulatory uncertainty', they are saying the uncertainty of C-18 applying to Bard. Very very clearly. It's a legal risk to them right now.
And yet you, who also just said they don't know enough about C-18 to comment on it, knows for certain it wouldn't apply to Bard. Incredible
Except that they never cited the bill in any discussion on this. Such an easy target, but it is never mentioned despite incredibly aggressive lobbying and public posturing by Google. Instead it is the grab all "this government is mean, and if you're a bootlicker you run forth and tell everyone how mean they are!" sort of statement because it can't easily be refuted for being garbage.
So super clear.
And for that matter, amazing C-18 has caused no issues for any of Google's competitors when it comes to LLMs. "Incredible".
>who also just said they don't know enough about C-18 to comment on it
I love that you think this is an attack. I said I don't care enough about it to hold an opinion (much less a strong one), unlike so many. But a corporate tantrum is the most obvious thing in the world, and Google is clearly having a corporate tantrum. And given that I'm not a pathetic bootlicker, I don't immediately look to rationalize for them.
You said you 'didn't know enough about it' to defend it, not that you didn't care, and yet still can say confidently "There is no scenario where C-18 has any relevance to this". There is such clear contradiction to that that arguing with you is definitely pointless.
Yet here you are, many comments deep. Almost like the doublethink / pointless bit is what you think is good debating tactics.
Every comment has a context. When Google decided to bar their second rate product from Canada, C-18 was the motive (as I clearly stated in my root comment), but clearly legally it had no relevance or Google would have actually cited it.
See, corporations love to target specific things. If C-18 prevented BartGPT from coming to Canada, Google would absolutely have cited it given their public fight. But they didn't (despite your claims about how clear this is). Instead they did the classic hand-wavy something-something bit that no legal analysis can actually refute. It riles up the bootlickers, while everyone else is going ???.
It's a tantrum. I am tired of your rhetoric, strawmanning and poor set logic responses so this will be the final time I respond to you.
As a side note, it's funny to call criticism of the governments overreaching bill 'bootlicking'. If there is one boot you should be afraid of stomping on your face it's the governments
