This is really great context - thank you for posting, because it's incredibly informative. I should also say that I use Open AI products and am overall an advo

This is really great context - thank you for posting, because it's incredibly informative. I should also say that I use Open AI products and am overall an advocate of them. However, with that being said: - I regard it as 100% disingenuous for them to call themselves Open AI, in the same way I regard it as 100% disingenuous for EE (Everything Everywhere) to call themselves EE in the UK when their network coverage is demonstrably patchy, and to the point of being woeful in many rural locales, - The reason people are objecting here is that GPT is an acronym of Generative Pretrained Transformer which, unless I've entirely misunderstood the last decade or so of AI, is a standard term in the AI field that describes a type of model. People don't think, and I don't think, a single company should be able to trademark a standard piece of terminology within a field. Beyond this, they're throwing shade at Open AI for trying to trademark GPT because this 100% conforms to the pattern of a company that started out with, what we all thought, was a remit of openness, still having the front to call themselves "Open AI" whilst locking any information of substance down for internal and Microsoft use. And I still think what you said is incredibly useful, so I'm absolutely not trying to start a fight. (And I don't hate Microsoft either: they do some good stuff [Azure, SQL Server, Xbox, Office, Teams {I know, that one's controversial, but I don't want to go down the rabbithole}], but the amount of BS involved in using Windows in a corporate environment does infuriate me on a daily basis - I point blank refuse to have it at home for anything other than emulation and retrogaming, which can, praise be to the Lord, substantially be satisfied with Linux nowadays.)