People are misinterpreting this as the research goal. No, it's an implicit negation of an ethos - AI Ethics, Trust & Safety, ESG, Politically Correct - that have dominated decision making in product and hiring in tech for the past decade.
Whether or not you agree with him, it's hard to deny that Musk is the only one offering researchers an escape from the bowing to the orthodoxy while also offering an A+ pedigree institution.
in short: do you really believe this is Musk producing an objective truth-aligned AI and not just a Musk-aligned AI?
What ideological belief does Musk hold that would create friction with his employees?
Hm, I don't think that's true. How does that manifest itself?
> started to micromanage its moderation to benefit himself
Has anyone been banned from the platform?
+ we are talking about Twitter, right? Elon uses Twitter for fun, it's pretty obvious from many of his troll tweets.
Do you have any evidence that people cannot disagree with him when working directly in a professional environment (eg office, zoom call, etc)?
Yes, evidently: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalist...
> Do you have any evidence that people cannot disagree with him when working directly in a professional environment (eg office, zoom call, etc)?
Seems so: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/technology/elon-musk-twit...
But I admit I don't follow Musk and his controversies very closely, I just looked these up. If you consider yourself disinterested and not a Musk supporter, and you think your take on Musk is representative of the general consensus, I'm happy to learn from you.
The accounts are doing just fine. Stop reading the news. Especially the ones who are consistently attacking Elon to get their portion of ad revenue.
I don't know a single person on earth who can speak on the full gamut of "tech" topics without revealing themselves "illiterate" on at least some of them. I've no doubt Musk is not some singular exception to this rule.
What is wrong is this woke supremacist nonsense, that some imbecile in Silicon Valley can dictate the truth about the world according to the woke bible, that's where the problem lies. Americans have gotten really intolerant of other cultures and ways of life. There's 8 billion people on this planet, ffs. We don't need the heavy handed paternalistic nonsense of OpenAI.
If a study is published in a research journal why should ChatGPT not be allowed to give you a summary of it? Why should it be censored because the woke cultists find it too icky?
This is a private company. They aren't required to hallucinate things that would harm their reputation to produce. That seems fine, & required if they are to survive.
Please stop flagging replies so actively! The intolerance here is saddening.
When you start putting "ethics" in fields like biology (not medicine or bioengineering, just inductive biology) you end up with nonsense like Lamarckism.
Reality has an underlying structure independently of how this structure interacts with our constructed ethical systems.
> Americans have gotten really intolerant of other cultures and ways of life.
It's unclear who to me in America is intolerant. I do think there is an extemism, and it scares me, but I don't think we agree on what the scary intolerance is. And I hope I can be clearer & less bitter/extreme/polarizing when I go to discuss the intolerant extremism I see.
> Why should it be censored because the woke cultists find it too icky?
Censoring is a much higher bar for me. OpenAI is just some corporation, doing their thing. They aren't compelled to hallucinate anything on anyone's behalf, just because there's something out there for them to hallucinate off. An entity should be able to pick what it wants to say. And there's a lot of heinous ugly shit on this planet, and in "research journals" of varying levels of quality that would look bad to bayesian parrot back out.
I can't imagine what authority, what the premise would be, to insist private companies or private citizens must ingest & output any content they find. Or any research journal content, for that too is not some clear objective qualifier; many nations & powers would & could exploit that qualifier to get in biased slanted content, if we started demanding peer reviewed journal as being compelled hallucination material.