I am not aware of evidence that he conned someone, but as a side quibble:
>Did someone force you to use Binance?
Do you understand what a con is? People are usually 'conned' because they are tricked into trusting someone that they shouldn't, when people are forced we typically refer to it as robbery or similar.
I wouldn't really give OpenAI credit for lasting 3 years. OpenAI lasted until they moment they had a successful commercial product. Principles are cheap when there is no actual consequences to sticking to them.
So... Google is legally required to treat contractors as second class citizens to afford them the privilege of being able to mistreat them and fire them at the drop of a pin.
We understand the """"purpose"""" of having contractors.
There are companies that don't view Development work as the "cost" center for the business, but much more directly as the "Profit" center of the business. This is not necessarily the norm, and certainly not in certain industries like Education or especially Hospitals, or Law where IT are basically seen as second class citizens (however well they may be compensated).
Do you not understand the basic principle of law that intention actually does matter? Or do you not understand that it may be difficult to prove that there was intention to commit a bad act even if it is trivial to establish that the bad act was made?
As someone who is ignorant of this matter, why aren't the conversations privileged? Is it because the lawyer's represent the company and not the individual personally?
Do you disagree that Users might be entitled to know when a corporation is misusing their private, sensitive information? What is ethical does not begin and end with the corporations best interest, the users whose private information is being mishandled are the victims here, let us not lose perspective.
You are also talking to someone who is on the PR team. This term gets thrown out a lot but in this case it is factually true, you are literally talking to a shill. I mean no disrespect to Danny but you are not going to get an honest and straightforward answer out of him.
If you think I am exaggerating, try to prompt him to see if you can get him to acknowledge that Googles current systems incentivize SEO spam. See if he passes the Turing test.
Having a high reputation shouldn't be a free pass to be an obnoxious jackass, but often that is what ends up happening. There is virtually no consequence to coming into a valid question (or answer) and just close it like a dickhead. No, in fact this behavior is rewarded.
If you are either someone who likes wielding power recklessly or autistic then becoming a power user isn't a problem. But demanding users "prove" they are trustworthy in a system where blatant abuses of authority go unchallenged is farcical.
Yud on one hand believes that AI is an actual *VERY LITERAL* existential humanity of which it is completely 100% paramount to get the rest of humanity on board with preventing our own destruction.
And yet he doesn't think it is worth the effort to take off his trilby hat in order to come across as marginally more respectable to the average person? When the way he is choosing to present himself is undermining his own message then yes, it is worth bringing up.