So dismissing it on technicalities is for sure clever but also obvious and lame.
The Letter/spirit thing eventually got boring. Please find better material
GP is explicitly criticising the language in the lede as being unsuitably vague, hence my reply.
As to the goal of the article, I fail to see what is dishonourable about comparing LLMs. You may consider the methodology flawed, but it's a perfectly respectable goal.
Sorry, was that another technicality? I'll try to find better material, just for you.
I was saying that because of the previous comment:
> to Scam Altman's creation
It wasn't derived in the same way though - I can read loads of books and so can write my own book, but that's not derivation in the same way as the Deepseek's derivation.