4 ms·

It seems like you asked chatgpt about something you misinterpreted in the first place.Thats a really good way to gaslight yourself. Look at the company structur

It seems like you asked chatgpt about something you misinterpreted in the first place.Thats a really good way to gaslight yourself. Look at the company structure of OpenAI... I am no fan of Sam either but come on.

belter 3y ago
This is from the OpenAI pages "OpenAI LP’s primary fiduciary obligation is to advance the aims of the OpenAI Charter, and the company is controlled by OpenAI Nonprofit’s board. All investors and employees sign agreements that OpenAI LP’s obligation to the Charter always comes first, even at the expense of some or all of their financial stake." Whether this is what's really going on or not, it's up to the courts to sort it out, or maybe it'll get sorted out without going to court. Since there's some past beef with other big-name billionaires, curious reporters should check out if there's someone else footing the bill for what could be a really pricey lawsuit.
- tensor 3y ago
  It takes a 30s google search to find the Wikipedia page which explains their transition to a "capped-profit" company. Irony of asking ChatGPT instead of a simple search indeed.
  - belter 3y ago
    The structure is well known, and is neither what is being argued in the lawsuit, or asked from ChatGPT. I am not commenting on the merits of it, that is for the courts. So what is your take? Are they on it for Profit or to save Humanity? Should we nominate already Sam Altman and Reid Hoffman for the Nobel Peace this year?
  - kordlessagain 3y ago
    There is a consistent inconsistency which is that people think because a model was trained “on the Internet” it “knows everything” on it. Hardly.
  - OnlineGladiator 3y ago
    The real irony is not noticing that this is the standard way people use ChatGPT and instead saying "you're using it wrong" - which is a convenient holier-than-thou argument that ignores the negative repercussions of this technology that we are literally observing and commenting on. If this is what ChatGPT mostly leads to - a wild amplification of fake news - then it's also ironic that OpenAI is claiming to make the world a better place. GP did a perfect job of using ChatGPT the way most of the world uses it - as a shortcut for doing any real research or work. This inevitably leads to misinformation being spread and it's palpable how often I see people cite ChatGPT's hallucinations as confirmation of their own bias. I really don't give a fuck about how people should use it compared to how they are using it. You cannot manifest a different reality with aphorisms. I'm not claiming this is a worthless technology with no positive benefits. I'm saying right now I can already observe enormous negative effects from this technology, and the upside seems relatively underwhelming.
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      > I'm saying right now I can already observe enormous negative effects from this technology, and the upside seems relatively underwhelming. > GP did a perfect job of using ChatGPT the way most of the world uses it the enormous negative effects are just perfectly normal human behavior, amplified. better to deal with the root cause than continue to act like technology is the danger.

belter 3y ago

This is from the OpenAI pages "OpenAI LP’s primary fiduciary obligation is to advance the aims of the OpenAI Charter, and the company is controlled by OpenAI Nonprofit’s board. All investors and employees sign agreements that OpenAI LP’s obligation to the Charter always comes first, even at the expense of some or all of their financial stake." Whether this is what's really going on or not, it's up to the courts to sort it out, or maybe it'll get sorted out without going to court. Since there's some past beef with other big-name billionaires, curious reporters should check out if there's someone else footing the bill for what could be a really pricey lawsuit.

tensor 3y ago
It takes a 30s google search to find the Wikipedia page which explains their transition to a "capped-profit" company. Irony of asking ChatGPT instead of a simple search indeed.
- belter 3y ago
  The structure is well known, and is neither what is being argued in the lawsuit, or asked from ChatGPT. I am not commenting on the merits of it, that is for the courts. So what is your take? Are they on it for Profit or to save Humanity? Should we nominate already Sam Altman and Reid Hoffman for the Nobel Peace this year?
- kordlessagain 3y ago
  There is a consistent inconsistency which is that people think because a model was trained “on the Internet” it “knows everything” on it. Hardly.
- OnlineGladiator 3y ago
  The real irony is not noticing that this is the standard way people use ChatGPT and instead saying "you're using it wrong" - which is a convenient holier-than-thou argument that ignores the negative repercussions of this technology that we are literally observing and commenting on. If this is what ChatGPT mostly leads to - a wild amplification of fake news - then it's also ironic that OpenAI is claiming to make the world a better place. GP did a perfect job of using ChatGPT the way most of the world uses it - as a shortcut for doing any real research or work. This inevitably leads to misinformation being spread and it's palpable how often I see people cite ChatGPT's hallucinations as confirmation of their own bias. I really don't give a fuck about how people should use it compared to how they are using it. You cannot manifest a different reality with aphorisms. I'm not claiming this is a worthless technology with no positive benefits. I'm saying right now I can already observe enormous negative effects from this technology, and the upside seems relatively underwhelming.
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    > I'm saying right now I can already observe enormous negative effects from this technology, and the upside seems relatively underwhelming. > GP did a perfect job of using ChatGPT the way most of the world uses it the enormous negative effects are just perfectly normal human behavior, amplified. better to deal with the root cause than continue to act like technology is the danger.