zlacker

> Google could have given us GPT-4 if they weren't busy tearing themselves asundre with people convinced a GPT-3 level model was sentient,

Doubt. When was the last time Google showed they had the ability to execute on anything?

>>lmm+(OP)
My comment: "Google could execute if not for <insert thing they're doing wrong>"

How is your comment doubting that? Do you have an alternative reason, or you think they're executing and mistyped?

>>Booris+og
Your comment was "Google could execute if not for <thing extremely specific to this particular field>". Given Google's recent track record I think any kind of specific problem like that is at most a symptom; their dysfunction runs a lot deeper.

>>lmm+G43
If you think a power structure that allows people to impose their will in a way that doesn't align with delivering value to your end user is "extremely specific to this particular field", I don't think you've reached the table stakes for examining Google's track record.

There's nothing "specific" about being crippled by people pushing an agenda, you'd think the fact this post was about Sam Altman of OpenAI being fired would make that clear enough.

>>Booris+jn3
If you were trying to express "a power structure that allows people to impose their will in a way that doesn't align with delivering value to your end user", writing "tearing themselves asundre with people convinced a GPT-3 level model was sentient" was a very poor way to communicate that.

>>lmm+5E5
It's a great way since I'm writing for people who have context. Not everything should be written for the lowest common denominator, and if you lack context you can ask for it instead of going "Doubt. <insert comment making it clear you should have just asked for context>"