Editing Openai/6942038b-8f10-8003-bf4f-7895677c2166 (section)

===== Does C show good reading comprehension of A → B? =====

Only partially, and arguably not very well.
* A is making a conceptual point: LLMs as an assisted knowledge/library idea that’s been imagined for decades.
* B responds directly and appropriately by narrowing in on a concrete obstacle to that vision: copyright, especially for something like a massive RAG-backed library.

C, however, shifts the frame. Instead of engaging with copyright as a blocker to retrieval or release, they pivot to:
* training data scale,
* AGI timelines,
* and what big companies already possess internally.

That’s a related topic, but it’s not the same one. B is talking about legal constraints on deployment and access; C is talking about whether more data would materially improve intelligence. Those are orthogonal questions.

So C’s comment:
* does not directly answer B’s concern, and
* implicitly reframes the discussion without acknowledging the shift.

That’s usually a sign of weak reading comprehension or a conversational habit of steering toward a preferred talking point.