That is an absurd and entirely untenable position that breaks with approximately all western conventions.

Only the CIA knows whether or not they're actively covering up reptilian space aliens exerting control over the US government. Therefore the burden of proof remains on the CIA to prove that they are not actively participating in such a scheme.

▲

nulld3v 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't understand, OpenAI can just say: "yes/no we did/did not train on your data". It's not a hard question to answer, and it is a question that OpenAI should be able to answer for all data we feed into ChatGPT.

▲

fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's not a hard question to answer

I didn't realize you had insider knowledge about their systems. Do please explain for the class.

As I understand it they will only have trained on his data if he consented to it. Do you have evidence that they do otherwise?

	▲	Timon3 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This whole discussion is about evidence. That's not proof and it is not certain, but it is evidence pointing into the direction that OpenAI might be doing something that they're strongly incentivized to do. What kind of "evidence" do you see as necessary?
	▲	hellohello2 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		When someone authors a paper, is it on others to proove the author did not use their work as inspiration? No, it is on the author to give credit where it is due. You guys are acting as if it its legal issue, when it is not.