You're claiming that legality is the necessary & sufficient condition for. Legal != Good, Right, Just, Moral, etc.

Many things are illegal, but still you'd have to be an immoral, evil asshole to do.

This kind of thing is weird to call out. Your perception of a candidate’s emotions isn’t relevant. People are wired differently. Some people can bullshit with no nervousness at all. Some people can be highly skilled and not able to practice this away. It’s a matter of wiring.

Calling out actions and behaviors and words, observable reality, is fine. Emotions, no.

H1B were no less skilled (and no less paid) than their US-based counterparts.

In this case, it’s much simpler and more human. Largely between two humans — buckmaster and Bubeck. The interesting question is what the role of contribution and credit for research in the ai world.

The capabilities of AI aren’t even in question in this case.

And it still leaves open the question of the prompt itself, which can just as easily encode information about the same knowledge.

And even if so, it should be on the company to design systems to avoid academic plagiarism and offer the right transparency. It shouldn’t suffice to say “we don’t know what went into the model, when, or how” —- that’s a solvable problem that an accountable company can satisfy.

In the transcripts, Brubeck is very cagey and evasive about the prompt, when it was supplied, and its contents.

To start -- how many of those 3,000 engineers do you think work on the mobile app? And even among those who work on the app -- do you think they're all working on user quality-of-life and just can't get it right? And it's a $175BB company -- do you think it's worth that much based on the quality of its mobile app?

That still sticks around as people who've never played it comment & upvote the same things.

I've never played it. Just witnessing the cargo culting. If I were wanting to give an opinion on this post without actual information, the 'empty procedural generation' critique is exactly what I'd say, since that's all I associate with this game from the briefest commentary when it was released.

Whether it's true in practice that's a matter of how their systems' functioning & its current state. If they really care about proving this, it's worth an audit. In fact, if anything, they may be able to prove that it hadn't used Buckmaster's inputs, but wouldn't be able to prove that it had.

I also do not believe it. They can, trivially, rule out their model being trained on if

More to the point -- of _course_ they know what data their model is trained on and the lineage of that data, even if it ended up being anonymized and they cannot identify which precise user.

It’s true that Tristan has no concrete evidence OAI accessed their session. It’s impossible for him to have that without OAI’s say so.

Why are you framing things so pro OAI?

I am supposing it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9bastien_Bubeck

This is terrible:

When Buckmaster pushed to make the dispute public, he says that Bubeck replied: “Why would you ruin your career?” Buckmaster says that when he pushed back, Bubeck followed up with: “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”