He's supposed to agree with you, or not express an opinion? Anything else short of this would be "defensive" right?
This whole idea that defending your positions in arguments is somehow a bad thing is a really odd modern development that I never understood.
Any AI model needs to be designed with adversarial usage in mind. And I don't even think random people trying to abuse the thing for five minutes to get it to output false or vile info counts as a sophisticated attack.
Clearly before they published that demo Facebook had again put zero thought into what bad actors can do with this technology and the appropriate response to people testing that out is certainly not blaming them.
Why? There's probably plenty of usage of ML where both the initial training set, its users and its outputs are internal to one company and hence well-controlled. Why should such a model be constructed with adversarial usage in mind, if such adversarial usage can be prevented by e.g. making it a fireable offense?
Wow, not sure what to say if that's what you think are the only options. I didn't see the original response to the parent commenter, but this quote in the article, "It’s no longer possible to have some fun by casually misusing it. Happy?" doesn't bode well.
I get that in the post-Twitter world it can be heart to differentiate between valid criticism and toxic bad-faith arguments, but lets not pretend that it's impossible to acknowledge criticism in a way that doesn't immediately try to dismiss it, even if you may not agree in the end.