OpenAI was probably able to at least pretend that her role mattered... until they let their AI autonomously hack a rival company, then used the incident to score marketing points. I'm not surprised she left.
My guess is that OpenAI has been doing more and more domestic spying type work as well as more and more military work - target selection and the like.
That's how the schoolhouse was blown up by a Tomahawk. An AI was fed old information, didn't realize or do proper validation, an analyst copy-pasted, then someone just punched the coordinates into the their control station and hit "fire".
It also wouldn't surprise me if OpenAI et al are being pressured to work with Israelis for targeting and analysis, too, since their "black box" AI that was doing terrorist acid tests and assigning bombing targets has proven nearly useless.
Demanding evidence from one party while accepting the word of the other is not even-handed.
It's not. I have no idea how you got there.
The right thing is to seek evidence for both perspectives. This is ironically not rocket science. Don't accept any viewpoint just on say-so, but especially don't pretend to sneering objectivity when you do so.
> Don't accept any viewpoint just on say-so
Exactly. That's why they asked for a citation. A response providing such citation is more appropriate than essentially saying "well you didn't ask for a citation from $other_side either".
Accepting something without evidence and only challenging things that disagree with your evidence-less beliefs is the exact opposite of even-handed.
And what tells you that they were not already aware of the evidence for those statements from prior knowledge? If so, then they would naturally only ask for evidence for the claims for they are not yet aware of the evidence. No need to re-ask for that.
Obviously I don't know whether they had such knowledge, but you seem to assume they didn't and are criticising them for this.
But with two competing claims, and no easy way to check ground truth, you absolutely ask for citations from both sides. There's nothing rational about uncritically accepting the narrative you heard first.