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?
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