You are missing the main points I am making. If you ignore every financial and social aspect of this, what I am saying applies.
The conduct of the investigation was devoid of epistemic integrity.
Ignoring all politics, I am frustrated that someone could read this as being a trusted source of information. It is the opposite, it is a source of misleading information which is absolving the industry of wrongdoing.
Research is about finding out the truth! Since when did researchers decide that instead of ONLY the facts; they would introduce some foreign objective of appeasing companies, publishing only what they will allow; or letting your own moral beliefs direct the research.
It's corrupt, regardless of whether that is financial or academic.
What kind of independent investigator submits their results to OpenAI for approval and changes the content and the tone, like a journalist hack submitting something to an editor?
I am in the shoes of the researcher, I am invited to do this investigation. I appeal to my integrity and I decide that I refuse to author propaganda at someone else's behest.
The first mistake that you are making is assuming that OpenAI is a singular conglomerate with the same set of values across its members, and that its researchers bear the same set of behaviors and opinions as its scummy executives. It isn't. The OpenAI researchers are probably a group of their mates, and they have every belief that they are being just as honest as any of their other colleagues. These antagonistic relationships do not really exist between research institutions; that is an invention of outsiders and marketing departments. Everyone is from the same group.
I don't see the report as absolving the industry of wrongdoing. In fact, I believe it is particularly damning, and many of my colleagues feel the same. No one is on the side of OpenAI here, not even its own members.
As for submitting the report back to OpenAI for comment and working with them, given that there is currently no government mandate or requirement for any AI company to disclose wrongdoing, this seems like an unfortunate necessity. Independent bodies and governing agencies have to be created. At the moment, it is the industry regulating itself, which means no regulation at all.
So no, you do not need to believe that the document is truth. But it is all that we will likely get, because nobody with any power will do a damn thing. That is just as frustrating to the researchers as it is to you. The solution is not to defund the institutes doing needed research. It is to put laws or incentives or something in place to punish inappropriate behavior and lack of disclosure for the companies.
The conduct of the investigation was devoid of epistemic integrity.
Ignoring all politics, I am frustrated that someone could read this as being a trusted source of information. It is the opposite, it is a source of misleading information which is absolving the industry of wrongdoing.
Research is about finding out the truth! Since when did researchers decide that instead of ONLY the facts; they would introduce some foreign objective of appeasing companies, publishing only what they will allow; or letting your own moral beliefs direct the research.
It's corrupt, regardless of whether that is financial or academic.
What kind of independent investigator submits their results to OpenAI for approval and changes the content and the tone, like a journalist hack submitting something to an editor?
I am in the shoes of the researcher, I am invited to do this investigation. I appeal to my integrity and I decide that I refuse to author propaganda at someone else's behest.