> And noticing your lack of argument in support of a company you confuse with a sport club is not an insult, by the way.
I have no idea why you think I think OpenAI is a sports club. That's so weird I have to assume it's an auto-corrupt and not even what you intended to write.
I have no idea why you think a bunch of counter-examples isn't an argument, or why they are shallow — they demonstrate that you are just plain wrong. The only other people I've met who think that counter-examples weren't arguments, were… as I recall, two biblical literalist-fundamentalists and one politician. Oh, and someone who refused to accept that encryption was a good idea and government backdoors a bad idea, but otherwise I can't categorise them because they were a random Twitter account and it was a decade ago. And, now I think about it, someone who got themselves banned from HN for repeatedly insulting anyone who preferred electric/PV over hydrogen/nuclear.
And given that it is your previous comment which is in the grey as I write this, I think you need to look in a mirror before calling my words "clumsy".
> I have no idea why you think I think OpenAI is a sports club. That's so weird I have to assume it's an auto-corrupt and not even what you intended to write.
Not understanding something is OK, taking pride of it like that is quite something though.
> I have no idea why you think a bunch of counter-examples isn't an argument
Using counter-arguments is fine, as long as they are on point, which isn't the case here. No aircraft maker, for instance, ever claimed they were designing in aircraft to protect people against the dangers aircraft cause to mankind.
And that's why no example taken from the existing world can help defend OpenAI' hypocrisy, because no other company in the world started as a non-profit with grandiose claims like they did.
> or why they are shallow
Your writing is shallow because it goes in every direction without logical structure or exhibition of coherent thinking. You're jumping from one idea to another without articulating them.
And this latest comment of yours is also a good illustration of this, with the majority of your comment being rambling about random people you've met in real life or over the internet. Don't you realize it doesn't bring anything to the point you're trying to make and does a great disservice to your argumentation?
> And given that it is your previous comment which is in the grey as I write this, I think you need to look in a mirror before calling my words "clumsy".
Oh no, one individual OpenAI fan[1] downvoted my comment, my day is ruined.
[1] an here you see the explanation for the “sport club” point I made earlier, for some reason a bunch of people seem to believe that it's sensible to be fans of particular company and defend them in all situations over the internet. Apple fandom is the canonical example of that kind of behavior, but nowadays Tesla and OpenAI now have a fanbase with similar zealotry.
