Your second source is very clear on the fact that "but the presence in documents is not the same as an allegation of criminal conduct" and repeats this information multiple times. I don't say he has nothing to be accountable for, just that this is very far from any proof and people just bend it to fit their narrative.
Even though I hate a lot of what openAI is doing. Users must be more informed about llms, additional safeguards will just censor the model and make it worst. Sure they could set up a way to contact people when some kind of things are reported by the user, but we should take care before implementing a parental control that would be equivalent to reading a teen's journal and invading its privacy.
In a way it's similar to pseudoscientific alternative therapies people will say it's awesome and no problem since it helps people, but since it's based on nothing it actually gives people fake memories and can acerbate disorders
What I said is that smart people can be convinced to move to another platform. Most of my friends are not technically inclined, but it was easy to make them use it, at least to chat with me.
What you did is change "smart people" with "people who already want to move", which is not the same. You then said it's not something you can choose (as you cannot choose to be rich). But I answered that you can actually choose your friends.
Never did I say people who are not interested in niche technologies are not smart. My statement can be rephrased in an equivalent statement "people who cannot be convinced to change are not smart", and I stand to it.
Your second source is very clear on the fact that "but the presence in documents is not the same as an allegation of criminal conduct" and repeats this information multiple times. I don't say he has nothing to be accountable for, just that this is very far from any proof and people just bend it to fit their narrative.