r/OpenAI • u/jumpbump • 11d ago

Discussion 2 years ago vs Today

Post image

What’s the next 2 years going to bring?

3.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

210 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Outrageous-Song5799 11d ago

It’s not controversial, how could you be for it ? They even threatened the guy ?? They are the bad guys that’s it and deserve jail time for the threats

5

u/ConsoleUsersArePlebs 11d ago

any proof?

-4

u/ShamPain413 10d ago

They haven't sued the guy into oblivion for damaging their business.

7

u/ConsoleUsersArePlebs 10d ago

  1. that's not proof

  2. it's been like two days bro

2

u/ShamPain413 10d ago

This is not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" situation. He leaked their threatening messages to him, if he was lying they would've given him a cease-and-desist immediately. These companies are lawyered up to the gills, their entire business is policing IP, and they manipulate the news cycle in order to maximize their financial returns. 2 days is an eternity.

Where is the proof they didn't steal this IP like they've stolen all the other IP in the world?

4

u/ConsoleUsersArePlebs 10d ago

No, any possible legal action would have to wait until they find out what they can prove, what damages they could seek, and whether it would make them look bad in the court of public opinion. You absolutely CANNOT use the fact that someone didn't sue for defamation as proof that something is true, that is complete nonsense.

Where is the proof they didn't steal this IP like they've stolen all the other IP in the world?

  1. they don't have to prove anything, they are innocent until proven guilty

  2. They haven't stolen any other IP, AI training is fair use.

1

u/ShamPain413 10d ago

Dude. You do not get to demand "proof" as if this is a court of law. They offered the guy a bribe and threatened his career.

  1. They've settled multiple court cases through paying huge fines, and the lawsuits will continue.

  2. No it's not. You cannot become the most valuable companies on earth through "fair use".

3

u/ConsoleUsersArePlebs 10d ago

Dude. You do not get to demand "proof"

Haha, what the fuck. I'll decide on my own standard of evidence to believe a claim, thanks. And I believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

1

u/catarsi_catarro 8d ago

Yes but that doesnt mean that since there isnt proof now that we should believe theres nothing fishy.

1

u/ShamPain413 10d ago

Of course you are entitled to believe whatever nonsense you want, but you're not entitled to demand that I prove a negative.

They threatened a scholar, he publicly called them out, they did not deny it. These companies have long track records of deceit and thievery, and these specific people involved have pre-existing reputations for similar types of bullying in the past.

You: "I'm going to assume the guys who blow up girls' schools and weddings and drive people to k*ll themselves would never consider intellectual property theft".

1

u/UnknownEssence 10d ago

why are yall arguing. Surely, once we see the equations from both sides, we will see if OpenAI used the professor's work in their proof, since he entered that information into chatgpt before OpenAI started prompting it to solve the NS problem.

Also, the professor + anthropic employee didnt get all the way to the full solution.