> I was just calling them by their new name, but yes clearly I am not the biggest fan of OpenAI and me invoking their name so soon betrays that.
My point is that at least from the standpoint of "Why does this process exist in the way it does?", OpenAI is not their "new name" in any logical sense. If you aren't happy with the process used a year from now, it would be reasonable in my opinion to criticize OpenAI for not making it different somehow. I'd argue that a parent company trying to make substantive process changes in such a short window would be strictly a bad thing though, because it would mean they didn't take the time to fully understand the context of what it's trying to solve and why it's the way it is currently.
I don't really disagree with anything else you're saying about OpenAI here, but I still think it's somewhat disingenuous to name-check them in this context.
My point is that at least from the standpoint of "Why does this process exist in the way it does?", OpenAI is not their "new name" in any logical sense. If you aren't happy with the process used a year from now, it would be reasonable in my opinion to criticize OpenAI for not making it different somehow. I'd argue that a parent company trying to make substantive process changes in such a short window would be strictly a bad thing though, because it would mean they didn't take the time to fully understand the context of what it's trying to solve and why it's the way it is currently.
I don't really disagree with anything else you're saying about OpenAI here, but I still think it's somewhat disingenuous to name-check them in this context.