zlacker

>>apengw+(OP)
There’s a recurring pattern here of OpenAI getting caught red handed doing bad things and then being all like “Oh it was just a misunderstanding, nothing more, we’ll get on to fixing that ASAP… nothing to see here…”

It’s becoming too much to just be honest oversights.

>>JCM9+pg
It's the correct counter-strategy to people who believe that you shouldn't attribute to malice what could be attributed to stupidity (and who don't update that prior for their history with a particular actor).

And it works in part because things often are accidents - enough to give plausible deniability and room to interpret things favorably if you want to. I've seen this from the inside. Here are two HN threads about times my previous company was exposing (or was planning to expose) data users didn't want us to: [1] [2]

Without reading our responses in the comments, can you tell which one was deliberate and which one wasn't? It's not easy to tell with the information you have available from the outside. The comments and eventual resolutions might tell you, but the initial apparent act won't. (For the record, [1] was deliberate and [2] was not.)

[1] >>23279837

[2] >>31769601

>>rachof+as
Well, in this case, you have the CEO saying basically they didn’t know about it until about a month ago and then Vox brings receipts with docs signed by Altman and Friends showing he and others signed off on the policy originally (or at least as of the date of the doc, which is about a year ago for one of them). And we have several layers of evidence from several different directions accumulating and indicating that Altman is (and this is a considered choice of words) a malicious shitbag. That seems to qualify as a pretty solid exception to the general rule that you cite of not attributing to malice etc.