4 ms·
Yes, but only if you take this one sided statement at face value.
by sk4rekr0w 28d ago
Yes, but only if you take this one sided statement at face value.
- thereitgoes456 28d agoI’m open to evidence, but just using Bayesian reasoning, OpenAI is one of the most dishonest companies in history. They’re currently being sued for a dozen employees stealing Apple hardware! I don’t understand why I should give them any grace.
- tigershark 28d agoWhy would have they rushed the publication if this was not true? Are you also suggesting that he fully invented the call with Open AI?
- famouswaffles 28d agoThe results being true, the 'deal' that was made being true doesn't mean some of the implied accusations here are true, for example - that Open AI used their Codex logs to drive their breakthrough.
- tigershark 28d agoSo are you baselessly assuming that he is lying? He explicitly reported that he was threatened and your answer here is to defend OpenAI no matter what.
- famouswaffles 28d agoDo you not have reading comprehension? Did you even read the statement? He himself asserts at the end he doesn't know if the above example is true or not. What on earth are you going on about? Where in my comment am I assuming he's lying ?
- tigershark 28d agoFrom my post above: > He explicitly reported that *he was threatened* and your answer here is to defend OpenAI no matter what. Yes, I read fully the statement, what about you? Do you know what is a threat? What is this in your super-humble opinion if not a threat: > The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.” And you are saying that I don't have reading comprehension...
- sk4rekr0w 28d agoYou really lack reading comprehension
- tigershark 28d agoMy reading comprehension is pretty good, I'm not the one that doesn't recognize a threat even when it's perfectly clear. Verbatim from the statement: > The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”
- PowerElectronix 28d agoHow else would you explain OpenAI suddendly assembling a team focused on working the same problem from the same angle than the researchers that just made a breakthrough?
- famouswaffles 28d agoWhat would be so hard to explain? That OpenAI heard about the result and decided to throw a lot of money at it knowing it was within reach ? That the model took an approach that was published years ago ?
- calf 27d agoThat's a fake explanation, it skips explaining/justifying how OpenAi "heard about" the result
- famouswaffles 27d agoWe are told in the statement that there were rumours already going around about a Stokes result (I even know about the rumors in question. It was all over twitter in the right spaces) and that Tristan contacts OpenAI about the rumors. In the message, it's pretty clear Tristan has made some result. So either the rumors or Tristan's contact would explain it fine.
- calf 27d agoOne should not evaluate explanations based on level of "fine"/innocuousness, in ethics that is called motivated reasoning or something. The whole point of Tristan's first email was to address the issue of the rumors so in fact this explanation confounds several things (in terms of the mutual knowledge of the conversants and their intentions). Based on this lack of understanding it is pointless to continue this thread
- tristanj 27d agoThe rumors that Anthropic had solved a millennium problem were absolutely everywhere last week. I'm not surprised at all that OAI took their own stab at it.