Hacker News Reader

Comment by lupusreal | Hacker News Reader

They didn't infringe on a Tom Waits song, they got an impersonator to sing an entirely novel song.

My take is that for a certain cohort of AI hypersters and Sam fans, it is literally impossible for OpenAI to do wrong. Sam could probably shoot a man in cold blood on national television and we'd have somebody explaining how technically it's legal because reasons.

View on HN

And similarly, some people are always hungry for an opportunity to villanize OpenAI. This kind of polarized, black-and-white thinking is not productive.

Neither is false balance or enlightened centrism. The point of the GP is that we shouldn't worshipping these companies. They're not your Lord.

Yes, and the point of the "enlightened centrist" is that bad actions by a company don't mean that any complaints thrown at them are automatically valid, or that every employee at the company is acting maliciously. Pledging your allegiance to a megacorp is bad, but thinking that the court of public opinion is always correct is just as foolish.

We're not talking about any complaint, we're talking about a specific complaint. In the other thread there are about a dozen OpenAI fanboys saying the OpenAI copycat is different from the Ford copycat for a reason which is refuted by the Tom Waits case; the Tom Waits impersonator wasn't singing a Tom Waits song, they were singing about chips.

I'm not. Your comment said that, for a certain group of superfans, OpenAI can do no wrong and will always be biased in their favour. nsvd added that other people want to see OpenAI fail and will view anything regarding them negatively. I'm just elaborating on that. For one reason or another, this discourse has become personal for many people - the specific complaints don't matter, many people will be coming in with preconceived notions no matter what.

The claim is that Sam fanboys would defend Sam in any circumstance, not that Sam is guilty in any circumstance. The distinction shouldn't require explaination. If you're confused, then ask the chatbot to explain it to you.

OpenAI hasn't made it hard. Releasing ChatGPT has made a lot of peoples' lives worse, and their bait and switch from non-profit to profit are just the tip of the iceberg.

Wait whos lives are made worse by ChatGPT? I have not yet seen a claim like this

Teachers, for starters.

Ok I can see that teachers cant tell if a student has written an essay or used ChatGPT but how is that materially different from students paying for other people to write their essays? Its cheaper and easier? I knew students who payed for essays well before ChatGPT existed.

Any other examples? Not trying to defend OpenAI just interested in this idea that it has actually made anyones lives worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com