The steps for gradient descent with respect to some variable is:
1. Compute gradient of loss with respect to the variable
2. Update the variable with step in direction of the negative gradient.

The statement claims that the following are different:
1. Gradient descent on the data with frozen weights
2. Computing the gradient of the loss with respect to the input data using the frozen weights, and then update the data by taking a small step in the direction of the negative gradient

However, (1), expands to:
1. Compute the gradient of the loss with respect to [the input data with frozen weights]
2. Update the input data with a small step in the direction of the negative gradient.

Therefore, (1) is equivalent to (2).

Is this argument airtight? If not, explain exactly why it's wrong using clear logic.
The argument seems to be a bit unclear in the way it's presented, but I will try to analyze it to the best of my understanding.

The two statements are:

1. Gradient descent on the data with frozen weights.
2. Computing the gradient of the loss with respect to the input data using the frozen weights, and then update the data by taking a small step in the direction of the negative gradient.

The argument claims that the two statements are different but seems to imply that they are equivalent after expansion. To clarify, let's break down the steps of gradient descent applied to the input data while keeping the weights fixed:

1. Compute the gradient of the loss with respect to the input data (with frozen weights).
2. Update the input data with a small step in the direction of the negative gradient.

Now, let's compare these steps to the original statements:

- Statement 1: Gradient descent on the data with frozen weights seems to imply applying the gradient descent algorithm to the input data while keeping the model's weights fixed. This would involve the two steps outlined above.

- Statement 2: Computing the gradient of the loss with respect to the input data using the frozen weights, and then update the data by taking a small step in the direction of the negative gradient also describes the two steps outlined above.

Based on this analysis, the two statements are indeed equivalent, and the argument appears to be correct. Both statements describe the process of applying gradient descent to the input data with fixed weights, which involves computing the gradient of the loss concerning the input data and updating the input data in the direction of the negative gradient.
Oh, I'm sorry for providing unclear information. Thanks anyways!