3 ms·

You think so? It strikes me as very amateurish. Can't get to the point, ad hominem, says things that look incriminating (like, "we can't share that detail or we

You think so? It strikes me as very amateurish. Can't get to the point, ad hominem, says things that look incriminating (like, "we can't share that detail or we expose ourselves to lawsuits"). Anyway I'm not claiming it _actually_ was GPT-3, rather that it similarly lacks substance. It's instead creating an illusion of content with words.

sph 4y ago
> we can't share that detail or we expose ourselves to lawsuits That is not incriminating, that is standard practice: say the least amount possible unless compelled by the law, because even benign things could later be used against you. Corporate legal counsel often doesn't share the reasoning behind their advice for this very reason.