> I am disputing that claim You are entirely within your rights to say that the authors have assumed that openai is not lying about their models. They've proba

> I am disputing that claim You are entirely within your rights to say that the authors have assumed that openai is not lying about their models. They've probably also assumed that other paper authors are not lying in their papers. You then say however: > GPT is a closed source/weights, proprietary product that changes every couple of weeks or so. And when I ask for evidence of this very specific claim, you turn around and say the burden is on me to show that you're lying. That is what is butchering the concept of burden of proof. > If your twist on this issue would be true, then I would, by definition, have to accept everything that they claim as true without any evidence. Absolutely not.