I have no idea nor do I care about what Altman's sister accuses him of, but until it's conclusively proven in a court of law it's not something that should be used as a basis for anything of consequence.
Remember: Innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Thanks, I care even less now if that's even possible.
"Woman coming out with sexual assault allegations against man of prominence." is a dime a dozen occurence; most of them just end up wasting everyone's time due to flimsy or even non-existent hard evidence. Engaging in character assassination, aka cancel culture, on the basis of such nonsense plays right into the hands of the accuser.
The court of law exists specifically to deal with these kinds of allegations, acting appropriately and as necessary within the legal process is the extent of the responsibilities and duties owed by the accused. The accused owes the court of public opinion nothing, much less character assassins such as yourself.
What then? Has anything really changed? I would expect him to say the same thing regardless of its truth, so it seems to me we have no additional information: she still says it happened, the rest of the family says she's delusional, and he (obviously) says he's innocent.
Are your hypothetical morally-concerned employees satisfied now? If so, why?
If they're not satisfied, how does this not create an environment where the only thing you have to do to destroy a company is pay a {sibling, cousin, neighbor, ex-lover, etc} to claim something damaging about its CEO?
If her allegations are true, he should face the consequences, but they should come first through the system that is specifically designed for testing the truth of allegations that are this serious. OpenAI is under no obligation to launch an investigation themselves in response to an indictment-by-Twitter-mob.
Holding trial in a court of law is that "investigation".
>not just ask one party's opinion and call it a day.
Except that's what you've been saying OpenAI employees should do.
>C'mon we're talking about his sister making this accusation not some rando gold digger I don't need to justify that some due diligence is in order.
Presuming guilt until proven innocent is the literal opposite of due dilligence.
It doesn't matter if the accuser is a sibling, a spouse, a (ex-)lover, a friend, a stranger, or a little green man from Mars. Due dilligence is considering the allegations put forth before the court and the evidence provided to either prove or disprove those allegations, with the burden of evidence primarily lying with the accuser.
>Innocent until proven guilty only works when allegations are investigated–otherwise everyone is always "innocent" because you have just chosen not to look.
You are correct that everyone is presumed innocent of any allegations until the case is brought to a trial and judgment is passed in a court of law with no chance for further appeals. If an accuser never files a lawsuit to bring their allegation to trial, the only way we can consider the accused is that he is innocent of any allegations.
Innocent until proven guilty though is the standard for legal punishment, not for public outrage. It's a standard meant to constrain the use of violence against an individual, not to prevent others from adjusting their association to them.
Also, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Nothing outside perhaps of mathematical truths could be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt". There's always some outside chance one can imagine.
It's still a useful barometer to calibrate one's own, individual participation in said public outrage.
For our own mental health, for our relationships with people around us, and to avoid being manipulated by dishonest people, it would behoove each and every one of us to adopt "innocent until proven guilty" regardless of whether we're legally compelled to do so.
Our required burden of proof can be lower than a court's but it should be higher than "unsubstantiated accusation by mentally ill family member that is uniformly denied by the rest of the family".
Very much agreed with this.
Anyone that has professionally worked with the mentally ill knows that entertaining her claims is a complete and utter waste of time.
Some forms of mental illness display themselves nearly as clearly and obviously as a giant gaping wound.
What does that even mean? They buy up factories and let them sit idle?
If you follow it to the logical conclusion, it's nothing more than repackaged original sin. All wealth, all income, is stolen from someone else with less, therefore you are all evil without exception to the extent you have anything. It's a liberal form of original sin (for humans to thrive we must alter our environment, we must save, to the extent you manage to accomplish that, you're evil, therefore you're evil for existing).
Keep in mind of course that China nicely disproved that premise in approximately the most dramatic way possible from ~1990-2020. If the pie were actually finite and had to be divided, swapped around, then China's extreme rise in wealth would have wiped out the equivalent of all of Western Europe's wealth combined.
Absolutely not. This is, in today's world, a perpetual cycle. Pay not keeping up with inflation, yet consumer costs across a wide range of vital services keeps increasing. This keeps the poor poor(er) and the rich rich(er).
EDIT: Fark.com always has perfect timing: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/20/60percent-of-americans-live-...
Why are 60% of Americans living this way when the <=1% could never, in their entire lives, spend the money they have (liquid or otherwise)? Why do the <=1% need all of the assets they have (planes, multiple large houses, mega yachts, and so on)? What kind of human parasite justifies that while they step on the backs of those who make money for them?
In China they do get to keep more proportionally, as a class. That only happens because they form the ruling class.
Just because revolutions are more likely to happen in poor countries doesn't mean the revolutions caused the poverty.
Of course, the ruling class of capitalist countries are incentivised to use their considerable power to lie about any socialist project and portray it as evil.
I always found it amazing to hear about workplace councils that could fire the boss or the very low rents.