Why are you both-sidesing this?
Apple is doing it right, simple high level statements.
OpenAI is acting like a teenager posting screenshots of literal texts and being overall petulant.
This is open and shut. The mature company will win this.
Why are you both-sidesing this?
Apple is doing it right, simple high level statements.
OpenAI is acting like a teenager posting screenshots of literal texts and being overall petulant.
This is open and shut. The mature company will win this.
> Apple is doing it right, simple high level statements
More to OP's points, Apple made legal filings. OpenAI is penning blog posts.
> Apple is doing it right, simple high level statements.
OpenAI is acting like a teenager posting screenshots of literal texts and being overall petulant.
Or you know, another perspective: Apple filed a very public lawsuit with some very explosive allegations, and OpenAI responded with receipts showing some of those allegations to be rooted in Apple's own incompetence. Sure, many more allegations are still unaddressed, but based on these screenshots a neutral observer could realistically question those too.
> This is open and shut. The mature company will win this.
This is not OpenAI's first rodeo so we actually have precedent: Elon filed a similarly explosive lawsuit, OpenAI responded similarly with receipts, and guess who won that case: https://openai.com/index/openai-elon-musk/
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
"Apple is doing it right, simple high level statements."
Apple does this to most any company that ends up with any of its former employees. It's basically expected. Apple is being the bully.
Looking at things from multiple perspectives and trying to see validity in each point of view is a virtue, not a vice. I really hate that "both-sides" has become a copy-paste insult by ideologues.
It's a virtue when there is validity to both sides.
But it's extremely harmful when there isn't.
"Alice says murder is bad, while Bob says murder is a fun and healthy recreational activity. Trying to see validity in each point of view is a virtue, not a vice." See, it doesn't work.
The point is you need to TRY in order to have a chance of finding validity. No one is talking about murder here, which a pretty trite counterexample.
In the case of Apple and OpenAI, since that's actually what we're talking about: why is it wrong to suggest that there may be validity to each other's points of view, especially given that we don't have all the facts?
Nah , OpenAI doing it right , defending its interest and valuable employee with both legal and public from competing company negative oppinion.