I’d wager a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars looking to get recognition.
So do you have some research stating that or is it just a sort of feeling?
Because that’s an incredibly wild allegation to be making, impeaching someone’s veracity, especially after a fatality, should absolutely come with some kind of evidence.
I cannot possibly say but what I would say is that there is a significantly higher likelihood than what he is saying is correct. Given that you basically can prove it for yourself by simply asking the AI to quote copyrighted content, the fact that it can do that rather demonstrates that copyright content was acquired illegally, and if the copyright holders never talked to openAI, then openAI by definition never got permission.
It’s weird that you would assume malice on everyone’s behalf by default, what would they have to gain by it?
So do you have some research stating that or is it just a sort of feeling?
Because that’s an incredibly wild allegation to be making, impeaching someone’s veracity, especially after a fatality, should absolutely come with some kind of evidence.
It’s just speculation. I don’t know, I could be wrong, but I’d wager I’m right.
Do you think there’s not a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers who are liars?
This, ladies and gentlemen and all those in between, is what the professionals call “talking out of your ass.”
Uhh, no. I didn’t say it was true, I said I think it would be true.
If you equate that to “talking out of my ass” then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
I cannot possibly say but what I would say is that there is a significantly higher likelihood than what he is saying is correct. Given that you basically can prove it for yourself by simply asking the AI to quote copyrighted content, the fact that it can do that rather demonstrates that copyright content was acquired illegally, and if the copyright holders never talked to openAI, then openAI by definition never got permission.
It’s weird that you would assume malice on everyone’s behalf by default, what would they have to gain by it?
Can you read? I never assumed malice on everyone’s behavior. I said a statistically significant amount.
Yep and I’ve asked you and you’ve got no statistics.
No, I don’t.
Do you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOVbAmknKUk
I think there’s not enough evidence to prove that, so no. Why would you lie in the way that you’re most likely going to be killed from?
What does this mean?
Whistleblowing is high risk and people get killed for it?
What evidence do you have for this?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0el3r2nlko
You can prove he was murdered? Have you taken this information to the police?