We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.

It is extremely clear. You are just detailing the buffer being used to pretend otherwise.

In answering whether Nguyen's argument holds, Runciman decides Nguyen isn't talented enough to be worth judging, then judges him anyway. A book about scoring systems gets scored on the wrong axis. Runciman then uses this to great effect, blending this silly aesthetic complaint with a real structural one.

The structural point I even agree with. You can always take up a new game, but at the social level there is often no other game to play, and you can't opt out of a metric that has power over you. But Runciman doesn't trust the point to carry the piece, so the verdict on Nguyen's prose is enlisted to stand in for a verdict on Nguyen's case.

The irony: to fault the book for not being "compelling reading" is to let a convenient proxy displace the value it was meant to track. That is "value capture" as Nguyen puts it.

edit: Looking again, this may be overstated. Apex-era gaming culture likely helped popularize the usage, but considering older idioms like "crack shot," the actual etymological root is more likely there.

Some people have very funny ways at looking at the most mundane context in my mind. It would be a shame if I didnt spend time sharing my funny head in ways that can't be captured in a record!

I attempted to explore the works of Kinoko Nasu/TYPE-MOON through its characters and the relationships across works and it was mostly nonsense. Sure it had some broad relations correct, but it presented a tiny set of meaningful characters and only attempted to touch Fate/Stay-Night and Tsukihime.

Even more damning was that it produced garbled text for a few of the textual representations and often even if the lettering was clean, the grammar was off.

No one is assuming the output is strictly low quality from what I can tell. I am personally evaluating the method you provided, which suggested you are championing a sloppy but highly iterative design flow against a seasoned curated suite for defining design. I dont see any reason to assume the other comment was doing anything otherwise.

You made a broad generalized strong claim and were met with the opposing force, which is actually acting from their own understanding of good faith, believe it or not (see how this analysis is void of meaning?).

Perhaps this phrasing is what invited the interpretation you seem to be annoyed with.

There is not much to gain by suggesting everyone is simply bad faith.