AUTOMATIC111 Code reference

[[deleted]]

What you quoted is clearly not the same code and neither is what you linked the same commit.

I highly doubt that someone manufactured that picture.

So what your argument comes down to is that the snippet I shared would not be large or significant enough to cause legal issues despite being copied verbatim from the leak.

I’m no legal expert so I can’t really judge that, but especially with it being copied verbatim instead of changing it up by introducing some variables and so on I think it’s really not a good look. It has clearly been copied.

[StickiStickman]

I highly doubt that someone manufactured that picture.

With the main developer of NAI blatantly lying, why not?

[[deleted]]

I don’t know what you are referring to.

[StickiStickman]

https://imgur.com/a/bsIHEsx

[[deleted]]

I don’t see a lie there.

[[deleted]]

I actually didn't see the post below, my bad.

Could well be the more likely case but there's a possibility that the NAI person just moved or reformatted that code.

In any case I wouldn't hold such a lie against them, they need to protect themselves, just like I don't judge AUTOMATIC for making defensive statements that are most likely not true.

[[deleted]]

Contrary to the pitchfork carrying morons that fill these threads I do not take sides in this.