"One other concern that directly arises in this development is that there is a history of closely related ideas in the literature,.. which are not appropriately referenced in Chat GPT’s paper. If a human came up with this argument and didn’t cite such previous work, we would assume that they were unfamiliar with the previous work and came up with the ideas independently, since our professional norms require us to cite previous work whose ideas influenced our work. On the other hand, Chat GPT is in some sense “familiar” with all the previous work."

This is completely uninteresting to the actual point, it merely points out a human issue. It has nothing to do with AI.

Not surprised this poster reproduced it, though. What exactly about it is "clarifying"?

You get what you pay for, and phantomfive is cheap.

Does it though? What you say may well be true of critics, but how any of this supports your claim is baffling. Perhaps the winners were written by AI *and* were the best. Perhaps ALL the entries were written by AI. We don't know, based on this information, whether judging was good or not. We only know your prejudices.

"It does not mean LLMs are producing quality literature though. It's just further evidence that literary critics wouldn't recognize quality literature if it smacked then upside the head."

Where is the claim that LLMs produce "quality literature"? And where is this further evidence, or any evidence at all?

"Nobody wants shitware..."

If only that were true. No consumers want shitware but most tolerate it. The industry LOVES shitware, the lower the bar the easier the profit.

"...the court could find justification to stop business in America from being allowed to steal non-profits..."

That was not even an option in this case. The result you hoped for was for Musk to win an enormous amount of money and possibly control over OpenAI, which you would then happily see as a for-profit corporation.

"I guess I was wrong."
That's not surprising, nor is your incessant dishonesty.

There was no core issue.

I like how people assume Musk would have won if not for a technicality. The case wasn't even considered by the jury because of failure to file on time. There is no reason to believe it would have faired better if not dismissed for the reason it was.

Musk is a malignant sociopath, doing damage to people is his priority. It's really bad when Peter Thiel says that about you.

It was a civil case, there was no issue of "stealing an entire non-profit worth billions". Did you have Grok write that?

The DOGE rules? If you actually cared about a single rule "American business have to operate under" you would be cheering this decision like everyone else. What we have here is two sociopathic billionaires and a douchebag cheering on one of them. Any "seemingly intelligent" person would hope both lost everything.

"I think the right thing to have done is to revert OpenAI back into a pure non-profit..."
Of course you do.

"The ability for business people to start non-profits and pivot once the non-profit advantages have borne fruit."
Was precisely Elon Musk's plan. The non-profit status would make it more cost effective for him to seize control and exploit rapid increase in valuation.

"Non-profits get special pricing for most of the services they use, purchase hardware at discounts, get tax deductible donations from their "founders", and make a healthy business..."
Citations please. No one is compelled to even do business with a non-profit and non-profit does not mean no revenue.

"...convert to profit, and pillage all the coffers in stock buybacks and distributions. This is not wise."
Right, and that should be reserved for Elon Musk, right?

The great thing about Elon Musk failing to take control of OpenAI is that we can all see what a fraud his game of claiming to be an innovative genius is. Can't rewrite history to claim you are the chief scientist and founder when you never controlled the company in the first place. With AI we clearly see that Musk copies other people's work and makes worse versions.

"New research suggests dark matter could leave a tiny but discernible imprint in the cacophony of ripples in spacetime..."

The kind of "cacophony" you cannot "hear".

Also:

"This is simply because it doesn't interact with light."

Is it "simply" because of that though? Then they correct this very claim later:

"In other words, atoms do interact with light (more technically, electromagnetic radiation). In fact, the only way astronomers know dark matter exists is via its interaction with gravity and the way this interaction curves spacetime, indirectly influencing ordinary matter and light."

LOL. Good think we'll be able to use our ears soon.

Particularly when you can just brag that you do.

"It's actually creating a new industrial revolution so it's better to have a positive attitude about it, but whatever. "

It is not, but we can assume where you have money invested.

"One of the first features I really liked is that I can select a mess of text (even with random extra markdown formatting characters), and tell the AI clean it all up and make a pretty table out of it."

So you're an AI slop producer.

"Sure, I could do that myself, but it's a PITA. The problem of slop will get better..."

And is it really a problem for you? AI slop is better than you having to do work, right? That Industrial Revolution that you talk about, is that where you get money for nothing?

"LibreOffice is an editor, you are welcomed to and encouraged to make further changes..."

Sure, I could do that myself, but it's a PITA! Just spend $5 a month instead.

I spend $0 a month on word processing and I'm more concerned with the product of my efforts than developing my own tools. It's almost as though new solutions to long solved problems is all that matters here, not actually editing documents.

You were also trained on stuff that happened in the past and not stuff that will happen in the future, yet you make decisions, presumably. Unlike LLMs, you possess values that underlie a decision making process.

Unfortunately, the news regarding LLMs is not even as good as you think. LLMs, while trained on past events, don't necessarily place any value on good answers to past events, or even know if those answers are good or even what good is. It may decide the right answer is a lie, whatever a lie is to an LLM, and it will happily lie to you. Remember that people in charge of LLMs are extremely wealthy, they don't get more money without taking it from others and the best way to take from others is to give advice to people that they can exploit. If they can control that, they will. Elon Musk wants to own AI for many reasons, that would certainly be one.

ChatGPT's version: smother your child with a pillow.