Interesting take. In all of the defences of LLMs using copyrighted material it's very often highlighted that "fair use" allows exactly such summaries of larger texts.
In reality, "fair use" is ruled on a case by case basis, so it's impossible to judge whether something is or not without it going to court.
Is this bot a closed system which is being used for profit? No, you know exactly what its source is (the single article it is condensing) and even has a handy link about how it is open source at the end of every single post.
I don't think anyone's going to pay for your version of ChatGPT
[Citation needed]
Allegedly possibly maybe accidentally whoopsie not quite licensed fully material.
BRAIN MELTING
No, I grew up eating foods that I could be certain weren't made up of 99% corn syrup.
Oh sorry, you're right, there's an address for more info. I shall scribe my correspondence post haste in order to discover the nature of the product on the shelf.
You know what else is odd? That you're staunchly defending this label with barely any information on it. Pretty much every point you've made is "but why does it need information"...
I thought it was my EU brain interpreting it that way. The alternative, like your wine example, is basically a black market cut product anywhere else.
As other people said, in the EU with "honey blend" you'd expect a blend of different types of honey, as it wouldn't be allowed to be call honey unless it was pure honey. Having to decipher "made with real honey" to mean "its not real honey" is just fucking odd. Flip it over and look at the ingredients and its just a list? Why no percentages?
Gourmet stuff comes in all sorts of weird packaging and shitty stuff comes in fancy packaging, so having to assume it is corn syrup because it's in a bear shape is also weird.
No rules for food labelling is wild.
Banned from lemmygrad? Impressive.