> Well what do you think ? Do the authors (or a single symbolic one) of pytorch or numpy or insert <very useful software> typically get credits on papers that utilize them heavily ?

I don't know! That's why I asked.

> Well Clearly these prominent institutions thought GPT's contribution significant enough to warrant an Open AI credit.

Contribution is a fitting word, I think, and well chosen. I'm sure OpenAI's contribution was quite large, quite green and quite full of Benjamins.

> Cool Story. Good thing that's not what happened so maybe we can do away with all these pointless non sequiturs yeah ? If you want to have a good faith argument, you're welcome to it, but if you're going to go on these nonsensical tangents, it's best we end this here.

It was a genuine question. What's the difference between a chimpanzee and a computer? Neither are humans and neither should be credited as authors on a research paper, unless the institution receives a fat stack of cash I guess. But alas Jane Goodall wasn't exactly flush with money and sycophants in the way OpenAI currently is.

>I don't know! That's why I asked.

If you don't read enough papers to immediately realize it is an extremely rare occurrence then what are you even doing? Why are you making comments like you have the slightest clue of what you're talking about? including insinuating the credit was what...the result of bribery?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You've decided to accuse prominent researchers of essentially academic fraud with no proof because you got butthurt about a credit. You think your opinion on what should and shouldn't get credited matters ? Okay

I've wasted enough time talking to you. Good Day.