Hacker News Reader

Comment by ronsor | Hacker News Reader

There is literally no good that could come to her or OpenAI by answering the question. That's why she didn't give a real answer.

View on HN

But it's again, really unfortunate about the name of the company because you'd thin the "open" part of the name, the mission statement and the fact it's supposed to be a not for profit would mean there is some level of transparency afforded to the person asking the question.

You could see her mind click into a new gear when that question was asked.

Just feels like more shadiness from this company.

They lied to us.

There is no good dodging the question and saying "I don't know." She could have just stonewalled "we used publicly available and licensed data" and that would have been far better.

Edit: Mind you, she did say that they used publicly available and licensed data. So if you're saying she has no motivation to say this, she already said it.

That would probably be a lie though. That seems worse.

Well saying that isn't saying we didn't use non public data so it's not exactly a lie

So our options are

  1. She doesn't know and appears incompetent.
  2. She does know and is lying (as you see, this is the main belief).
  3. She does know in part and that part could include an honest use of this claim. (She doesn't know all, but what she does know is legal)
  4. She does know in part and knows that some was illegally obtained

Truth be told, unless it is in writing somewhere that she knows of illegal data being used, she could post hoc claim 3. But if she does know illegal, then option 1 still gets her in trouble for the same reasons 3 would. The only difference is she appears incompetent by saying I don't know. Remember, post hoc she can say "At the time I was not aware of any illegally obtained works being used to train SORA". Claiming she doesn't know now would be WORSE if that is the situation and it came to light because it is a more explicit form of deciept.

Edit: Mind you, she basically took 1 and 3. She did say it used publicly available and licensed data.

Option 5, she'll have to tell when she gets subpoenaed. Just a matter of time

That's already considered

   5. "you won't understand" or "you're not yet ready to comprehend" or "insufficient data for meaningful answer".

When journalist spends half of the time speaking about safety and identification, the interviewee certainly realizes that the journalist and his audience do not understand the basic principles of algorithms.

  - Researcher: We have made an ultra-efficient algorithm for sorting data!
  - Journalist: And what protections have you put in place against processing copyrighted results? What about gender neutrality? And how should we distinguish between data sorted by a conventional algorithm and yours?
  - Researcher: ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com