Yes, but it’s important to not immediately assume that it’s because they’ve been killed.
I’d wager a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars looking to get recognition. When their lie catches up with them, they realize they’ve lost the one thing they had going for them and decide to end it all.
In the digital age where information can be shared so freely and so easily, there’s not really an excuse for whistleblowers to be like “wait until THIS date” before revealing their information.
This whistleblower is dead, they would be suspect #1 along with close family and friends. This is literally what the first step of an investigation should look like.
That’s literally how police investigations work, you start assuming a crime has been committed and try to see if you can find evidence of a crime being committed.
You don’t start assuming suicide by default. Not unless you’re a corrupt cop anyway.
I’d wager a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars looking to get recognition.
So do you have some research stating that or is it just a sort of feeling?
Because that’s an incredibly wild allegation to be making, impeaching someone’s veracity, especially after a fatality, should absolutely come with some kind of evidence.
I cannot possibly say but what I would say is that there is a significantly higher likelihood than what he is saying is correct. Given that you basically can prove it for yourself by simply asking the AI to quote copyrighted content, the fact that it can do that rather demonstrates that copyright content was acquired illegally, and if the copyright holders never talked to openAI, then openAI by definition never got permission.
It’s weird that you would assume malice on everyone’s behalf by default, what would they have to gain by it?
statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars … When their lie catches up with them … decide to end it all"
This is a very unlikely situation.
These stories of nefarious liars abusing poor defenseless corporations would be publicized widely if true. We’d have prominent, well known examples.
This needs people who think the threats and reputational damage of being a whistleblower are worth it for the ‘recognition’, who are smart enough to construct a believable sounding claim but not smart enough to see the inevitable consequences. That specific kind of person is going to be much rarer than people who work for a legitimately shitty company and don’t like it.
Yes, but it’s important to not immediately assume that it’s because they’ve been killed.
I’d wager a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers are actually just liars looking to get recognition. When their lie catches up with them, they realize they’ve lost the one thing they had going for them and decide to end it all.
In the digital age where information can be shared so freely and so easily, there’s not really an excuse for whistleblowers to be like “wait until THIS date” before revealing their information.
Why is that important? No you assume they are/were killed until someone has some real fuckin proof about it
Well, all the evidence points to a suicide so you don’t really have a point here.
Haha okay present your evidence
Do you have any evidence that invalidates this?
You can’t prove a negative.
This isn’t proving a negative? Lol.
This whistleblower is dead, they would be suspect #1 along with close family and friends. This is literally what the first step of an investigation should look like.
That’s literally how police investigations work, you start assuming a crime has been committed and try to see if you can find evidence of a crime being committed.
You don’t start assuming suicide by default. Not unless you’re a corrupt cop anyway.
Yes you can. Mathematicians do it all the time.
But that’s beside the point. I can prove you didn’t kill yourself by showing that someone else did
deleted by creator
So do you have some research stating that or is it just a sort of feeling?
Because that’s an incredibly wild allegation to be making, impeaching someone’s veracity, especially after a fatality, should absolutely come with some kind of evidence.
It’s just speculation. I don’t know, I could be wrong, but I’d wager I’m right.
Do you think there’s not a statistically significant amount of whistleblowers who are liars?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOVbAmknKUk
This, ladies and gentlemen and all those in between, is what the professionals call “talking out of your ass.”
Uhh, no. I didn’t say it was true, I said I think it would be true.
If you equate that to “talking out of my ass” then you need to work on your reading comprehension.
I cannot possibly say but what I would say is that there is a significantly higher likelihood than what he is saying is correct. Given that you basically can prove it for yourself by simply asking the AI to quote copyrighted content, the fact that it can do that rather demonstrates that copyright content was acquired illegally, and if the copyright holders never talked to openAI, then openAI by definition never got permission.
It’s weird that you would assume malice on everyone’s behalf by default, what would they have to gain by it?
Can you read? I never assumed malice on everyone’s behavior. I said a statistically significant amount.
Yep and I’ve asked you and you’ve got no statistics.
No, I don’t.
Do you?
I think there’s not enough evidence to prove that, so no. Why would you lie in the way that you’re most likely going to be killed from?
What does this mean?
Whistleblowing is high risk and people get killed for it?
What evidence do you have for this?
This is a very unlikely situation.
These stories of nefarious liars abusing poor defenseless corporations would be publicized widely if true. We’d have prominent, well known examples.
This needs people who think the threats and reputational damage of being a whistleblower are worth it for the ‘recognition’, who are smart enough to construct a believable sounding claim but not smart enough to see the inevitable consequences. That specific kind of person is going to be much rarer than people who work for a legitimately shitty company and don’t like it.
Fair point, although I can’t say I agree with it fully