Unless there is any additional info, I think it’s a bit of a conspiracy theory to assume involvement from openAI. They are clearly malicious and dishonest, but that doesn’t mean one should just make things up. Furthermore, US oligarchs historically avoid getting their hands dirty (for most of the part, there are of course exceptions).
Who’s making stuff up? I don’t think it’s debatable that this suicide benefits openAI.
What conclusion one might draw isn’t my responsibility.
I have to say, though, I personally find it rather challenging to understand the motivation of whistleblowing, filing a law suit, then one day later offing yourself. Whereas the motivation for OpenAI is plainly apparent.
However, that needs to be weighed against the unlikelihood due to the difficulty of keeping any conspiracy secret, which is a function of how many people would need to be involved. After that, Occam’s razor is a good heuristic.
But yes, we should keep in mind that this is all abductive reasoning, not deductive, so whatever conclusion one reaches should be considered only as plausible, not factual.
Unless there is any additional info, I think it’s a bit of a conspiracy theory to assume involvement from openAI. They are clearly malicious and dishonest, but that doesn’t mean one should just make things up. Furthermore, US oligarchs historically avoid getting their hands dirty (for most of the part, there are of course exceptions).
Who’s making stuff up? I don’t think it’s debatable that this suicide benefits openAI.
What conclusion one might draw isn’t my responsibility.
I have to say, though, I personally find it rather challenging to understand the motivation of whistleblowing, filing a law suit, then one day later offing yourself. Whereas the motivation for OpenAI is plainly apparent.
However, that needs to be weighed against the unlikelihood due to the difficulty of keeping any conspiracy secret, which is a function of how many people would need to be involved. After that, Occam’s razor is a good heuristic.
But yes, we should keep in mind that this is all abductive reasoning, not deductive, so whatever conclusion one reaches should be considered only as plausible, not factual.