Re:Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
by cqqxo4zV46cp on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @05:55PM
(#38538098)
Yeah, here it comes. In these conversations you don’t need to ask very many “why”s before it just turns out that the antagonist (you) has an axe to grind about OpenAI, and has added that the their misplaced sense of expertise with regard to the typical standards of proof in academic publications.
Re:Sorry, but a new prompt for GPT-4 is not a paper
by starbugs on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @06:59PM
(#38538683)
> Yeah, here it comes. In these conversations you don’t need to ask very many “why”s before it just turns out that the antagonist (you) has an axe to grind about OpenAI, and has added that the their misplaced sense of expertise with regard to the typical standards of proof in academic publications.
Seems to have hit hard?
I would find it borderline acceptable being offended by a user whose name has obviously been generated using a password generator if you could at least provide some substance to the discussion. Just labeling someone and questioning their competence based on your hurt feelings is a bit low. Please improve.
Sorry, I won't blindly believe a company who are cynical enough to call themselves "OpenAI", then publish a commercial closed source/weights model for profit.
Evidence that they do not change without notice or it didn't happen. Better even, provide the source and weights for research purposes. These models could be pulled at every instant if the company sees fit or ceases to exist.