4 ms·
The context of the comment thread you're replying to was a response to a comment suggesting the IRS will get involved in the question of whether MS have too muc
by swores 3y ago
The context of the comment thread you're replying to was a response to a comment suggesting the IRS will get involved in the question of whether MS have too much influence over OpenAI, it was not the subject of general industry regulation.
But hey, at least you fitted in a snarky line about ADHD in the comment you wrote while not having paid attention to the 3 comments above it.
- freedomben 3y agoif up-the-line parent wasn't talking about regulation of AI in general, then what do you think they meant by "competitive advantage"? Also, governments have to set policy and enforce that policy. They can't (or shouldn't at least) pick and choose favorites. Also GP snark was a reply to snark. Once somebody opens the snark, they should expect snark back. It's ideal for nobody to snark, and big for people not to snark back at a snarker, but snarkers gonna snark.
- jakderrida 3y ago[flagged]
- swores 3y agoI think the comment you had replied to was equally unwarranted, no need to tie me to them.
- jakderrida 3y agoI'm sorry. I was just taking the snark discussion to the next level. I thought going overboard was the only way to convey that there's no way I'm serious.
- rsrsrs86 3y agoWhen did this become a boy-girlfriend issue?