OpenAI’s president does ‘all the things,’ except answer a question

All the things might also include raping his sister for years and years. Or she’s making it all up.

One of them is lying.

So, what else is new?

I might not know (or, frankly, care) about how courts work in USA, but last time I checked, the witnesses’ job is to bring relevant and true pieces of info up, and this fucker is clearly not doing it.

I have previously said that if you can define the word “epistemology,” you should not testify in your own defense. So the lawyer skipped a word — is it really worth taking up the jury’s time to tell us all that? Save being the world’s cleverest boy for your parents.

The matter is not that he can define “epistemology”. It’s others not doing it, so they don’t pick up this shitty man’s strategy. It boils down to “truth is relative, so you don’t know nothing”. That’s why he’s trying to frame things as a matter of point of view ("I wouldn’t say it that way” and similar), or he’s vomiting “ackshyually” (like correcting a missing “the” or “a").

And, like. Points of view do matter, since they mean different pieces of info might be brought up, or info can be framed in a different way. However this shit is not magic; it won’t magically change the past. Either someone said something, or they didn’t; either something happened, or it didn’t; and that’s what any rule should care about.

“btw another realization from this is that it’d be wrong to steal the non-profit from him. to convert to a b-corp without him. that’d be pretty morally bankrupt and he’s really not an idiot.”

“And he’s really not an idiot” implies it would be fine if they wouldn’t get caught.

We went back and forth on this for quite some time; the jury’s heads snapped to and fro as though they were watching a tennis match. Brockman never did answer the question.

See, this can be brought into social media too, on why you shouldn’t waste your time with bullshitters: for you the bullshit is obvious, but for the people watching you and the bullshitter, they’re simply seeing two sides discussing endlessly.

But as it stands so far, the jury will have to decide who of two not-especially-trustworthy men it trusts more. I don’t envy them the task.

To be frank, I wouldn’t want to be in their skin.

Talking a lot without saying anything is an artform perfected by corporate executives.

I’m glad both of these assholes are wasting even more tax dollars in the courts to drain society with their bullshit nonsense. zzzzz