hackerfactor1
Joined 6 years ago
Joined 6 years ago
ChatGPT: Done!
(A) Ransomware or DDoS.
(B) Unexpected single point of failure (like a critical piece of hardware) and they need to rush-order a replacement.
(C) They can't identify the cause. (Doubtful.)
or
(D) Cascading failure. When they fix one thing, something else takes them down. Like a large queue of pending jobs that floods and crashes them when they come back up.
On one hand, I'm glad I don't depend on Square for purchases.
On the other hand, who's to say that my own payment provider can't have this same kind of problem?
The goal is to burden the recipient with overhead costs that it becomes impractical or cost-prohibitive to participate.
1. Can you claim that GPT are your initials? (Is your name George Patrick Tanner? Gina Parker Taylor?)
2. If you are using it for AI, then you're not going to be able to show that "GPT" is a term of art predating their company. The first appearance of the term for AI is from a paper by OpenAI.
3. Check the dates. Did you register your domain name before they filed their patent/trademark? (They filed in on Feb 3, 2023.) If so, then you have an argument for prior art.
4. Don't make an offer to sell (even in jest) without talking to an attorney. They could interpret it as a bad-faith negotiation and take the domain.
5. Do you plan to use the web site for something unrelated to AI? Information about GUID Partition Tables? Goniopora Toxin? General-purpose technologies? Generalized probabilistic theory? Grounded practical theory? Anything like this doesn't compete with their trademark.
Not a paid advertiser. Just a very happy customer.
Even if you have SPF and DKIM working correctly, they will block your email to outlook, hotmail, and other services unless you fill out their form. If you fill out the form, then you still need to wait months before they decide whether to accept your email.
On my own servers, I warn users who try to use hotmail or outlook that my email to them may not work and they should use a different email address.
(A) A sudden last minute huge influx of "No" votes. Either caused by bots or by Musk putting his finger on the scale. (Yes, I think this voting will be rigged.)
(B) He already has someone in mind for running Twitter. That person will be as bad or worse than he is. (What's DJTJ doing these days?)
(C) He will claim that 'liberals' and 'bots' forced a "Yes", so he'll remove those votes.
Or are you referring to the claims from Meta, Google, and Adobe -- which failed to hold up under independent evaluation.
You are also correct that one of the meta authors wrote in a comment. However, he demonstrated a clear lack of understanding regarding what makes the bits "independent" or how to resolve the independence problem.