Nits: > That depends. You may have a 30 line function which can be paper-worthy We have no disagreement. That's why I gave a pretty generic 3-line function. 9

Nits: > That depends. You may have a 30 line function which can be paper-worthy We have no disagreement. That's why I gave a pretty generic 3-line function. 90% of the upside of ML tools for me, by the way, is generating very routine code, so there's not even too much friction yet. I can prototype a parser with e.g. 5 XML libraries I've never used in 15 minutes, which means I make better design choices. > You're right. Let me rewrite my statement: "The reason why OpenAI keeps a non-profit part and has this convoluted many-company structure is to allow them to claim that they do non-profit research, which fair-use doctrine requires to work." > Hope that it's better now. Nope. It's not. The reason the non-profit part is around is right now, they're skirting the law. If it went away, they'd be very clearly committing fraud. The non-profit received support from donors -- including from the government in the form of a tax waiver and the general public in the forms of non-financial support (such as positive buzz / articles / scientific work) -- based on a 501(c)3 registration and a belief it would act in the public interest. The instant the 501(c)3 part went away, this would all be fraud. Everyone who helped make OpenAI successful, from the grad student who spoke about it glowingly at a conference to the federal government, would have been embezzled. I feel bad about having supported them, and I bet others do too.