Comment by refulgentis

First paragraph is unnecessarily personal.

It's also confusing: Did you think it was AI because of the "regurgitated talking point", as you say later, or because it was a "unhelpful excessively long-winded repl[y]"?

I'll take the whole thing as an intemperate moment, and what was intended to be communicated was "I'd love to argue about this more, but can you cut down reply length?"

> Ok, provide specifics yourself then.

Pointing out "Everyone does $X" is fallacious does not imply you have to prove no one has any incentive to do $X. There's plenty of things you have an incentive to do that I trust you won't do. :)

> If citations are so important here, cite a few dozen that are peer reviewed out of the hundreds.

Sure.

I got lost a bit, though, of what?

Are you asking for a set of journal articles, that are peer-reviewed, about AI, that aren't on arxiv?

> Why is that unjustified?

"$X doesn't follow traditional academic structures" does not imply "$X has no rigor at all"

> OpenAI is not a major research lab.

Eep.

> "all manner of problems in science in terms of ethical review. "

Yup!

The last 2 on my part are short because I'm not sure how to reply to "entity $A has short-term incentive to do thing $X, and entity $A is part of large group $B that sometimes does thing $X". We don't disagree there! I'm just applying symbolic logic to the rest. Ex. when I say "$X does not imply $Y" has a very definite field-specific meaning.

It's fine to feel the way you do. It takes a rigorously rational process to end up making my argument, but rigorously is too kind: it would be crippling in daily life.

A clear warning sign, for me, setting aside the personal attack opening, would have been when I was doing things like "arXiv has April Fool's Jokes!" -- I like to think I would have taken a step back after noticing it was "OpenAI is distantly related to group $X, a member of group $X did $Y, therefore let's assume OpenAI did $Y and conversate from there"