>To your second point, it's very funny how OpenAI seems to have soured the tech crowd on tech.
In this particular case, I'm not sour because of OpenAI. I am sour because of deceptive and gross business practices highlighted in the article.
In this particular case, I'm not sour because of OpenAI. I am sour because of deceptive and gross business practices highlighted in the article.
Using OpenAI as an example. ChatGPT is wonderful for the things it's made for. It's a tool, and a great one but that's all it is.
But OpenAI itself is a terrible company and Sam Altman is a power hungry conman that borders on snakeoil salesman.
And I'm soured on people like the CEO of my company who wants to shove a GPT chatbot into our application to do things that it's not at all good at or made for because they see dollar signs.
It was actually free back then I used it the one time and felt grateful enough for the help that I signed up for one cycle and then cancelled (since I didn't have a continued need for it).
Nothing gross or deceptive.
They just had to pay a fine for deceptive advertising. The article lists a number of other deceptive and immoral business practices.
You read an article about it and 7 years later and are convinced they are crooks.
Actually, you read an article and assumed that your anecdotal experience from 7 years ago is more reflective of how a business operates than a current year investigation into that company by a federal agency.
Nobody is arguing that they deceived you personally 7 years ago.
It wasn't an eighteen dollar a month lawyer, so your description of it as "any other" is wrong.