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
> you shouldn't attribute to malice what could be attributed to stupidity

It's worth noting that Hanlon’s razor was not originally intended to be interpreted as a philosophical aphorism in the same way as Occam’s:

> The term ‘Hanlon’s Razor’ and its accompanying phrase originally came from an individual named Robert. J. Hanlon from Scranton, Pennsylvania as a submission for a book of jokes and aphorisms, published in 1980 by Arthur Bloch.

https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/hanlon...

Hopefully we can collectively begin to put this notion to rest.