221–230 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically (?) I am immediately reminded of Steve Jobs by reading the first paragraph. Specifically Thoughts on Flash, but there were probably more such press releases. [0] https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/web-design-history/steve-job...
Except that Jobs was a good writer and made a clear point in a succinct fashion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see it as the Anti-AI aesthetic. When you write using this style it is obvious this isn't LLM generated and you signal this is well thought out. If you noticed Sam Altman's latest posts he moved to all lower case, including "I", which I see as due to the same reason
He's done that forever. For a while he stopped doing it, which made people think everything he posted was ChatGPT.
It almost feels as if they wanted the same clout received from the "Thoughts on Flash" Jobs article from nearly 20 years ago and thought ChatGPT could do better.
Lawyers would not have advised posting this.
Is it normal for a company this big to make a public blog post like this with almost no introduction to what they’re on about? I would expect them to start out with something like Apple is suing us for yada yada yada, but instead it reads like the diary of a hurt teenager.
It's always suspect when one side tries to argue their case in the court of public opinion.
Frankly, it's a big red flag for me and immediately casts suspicion on said party. I mean, do you think you're going to lose in court and so you're trying to get out ahead of that?
Is it normal for a company this big to make a public blog post like this with almost no introduction to what they’re on about? I would expect them to start out with something like Apple is suing us for yada yada yada, but instead it reads like the diary of a hurt teenager.
We're not the target of the blog post.
Just not clear who is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Direct and unrehearsed doesn't seem like the right tack for a high-stakes legal dispute between two (allegedly) trillion-dollar companies. Especially since they've not been able to make a coherent point here.
Yes, we've built a society where being two-faced and false is rewarded. The least we can do is temper our criticism when someone "fails" to adhere to that.
What really matters is the claim that Apple never raised those issues in the lawsuit with them. OpenAI claims the emails prove this, but to me all the emails prove is Apple sent an email that said “please see the attached letters”. We don’t know what is in the attachments but I imagine those were the relevant issues they raised. Moreover OpenAI says, “[Apple] now admits that Apple employees reached out to him and ask…
I was a bit confused too initially, but it looks like Chang was asking for the data to be copied _off his iCloud_ by the existing employee on his final day of employment. And then everything after that is just the existing employee asking for help on things Chang had prior knowledge of
So 90's…