You're looking at this in black and white. The CEO praised one of the administrations picks for being tough on big tech. While I think he's wrong in his statement on who stands for "the little guys" praising one pick for her stance on big tech does not mean he wholly supports the administration and it's actions.
Not all things require an equal reaction. Someone saying "this pick has a good track record" doesn't require the same level of drama as if he had said everything this administration does is awesome.
Yeah, we need radically different architecture in terms of the neural networks, and/or added capabilities such as function calling and RAG to improve the current sota
Crazy how broken the entire publication and review process is, that this stuff goes through without anyone noticing, and some even in well recognized journals.
It's basically organised crime. It's public money funding scientific publishing, and a huge part of the industry is just here to scam public money.
The industry is ripe for public prosecution when an article submitter didn't read it, an article reviewer didn't read it, neither did the publisher yet it is published in a journal with a subscription price in the thousands payed by publicly funded libraries.
So many students on every level of higher education, probably even starting from high school, are now using chat GPT. Does this make education a crime?
> I deeply regret my participation in the board's actions. I never intended to harm OpenAI. I love everything we've built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company.
