And they only count the influencers who use the OpenAI's partner hashtags!
US business model: go into billions of debt, brainwash the population via YouTube, Twitch, TikTok and Hacker News influencers. Intimidate foreign governments to allow the current snake oil. Wait a decade until you have minor profits and the stock price is through the roof because #growth-mindset.
Apple doesn't even have to pay them, just give them a chance to feel special with a new palette of colours. Who really thought they'd be unique for choosing the orange phone?
I wish I could find the email, but awhile ago one YC startup pitched me on a six-figure job role solely dedicated to posting/commenting on Hacker News about it. Apparently I did not respond "no, that's stupid."
yeah, I have contemplated that as well and thought it would be an interesting project (since hacker news provides open data) to analyze it for signals of influence/manipulation and around which entities and topics they cluster.
"Elon is a stupid fascist that mostly wouldn't have been noticed if Spacex and Tesla were what he dabbled in, but his incredible ego makes it impossible for him to keep his mouth shut".
Now, that one will be a whole lot harder to debunk.
You're telling me that you'd be surprised that people would be paid to boost messages on HN, a site filled with shitloads of above income earners in a multi-trillion dollar industry?
I don't want to be mean, but don't you think you're being a little naive here?
Not sure what you mean. HN comments certainly have influence on others' perceptions of different kinds of tech. I can't point you to hard data other than "advertising works." I know I'm susceptible to it.
What's worse is every major company is doing things like this. If you're a large enough company to be considered "evil" by someone you have media/social media teams duking it out in the advertizing-sphere.
Now, don't take it as me saying what OpenAI is doing is good. It's more if you're in the industry you know that if you're not doing things like this, you're the only one. Whole damned thing is corrupt.
Look, Effective Altruism money that goes through multiple funds (Survival and Flourishing Fund (SFF) => Center for AI Safety (CAIS)) can have any ulterior motive.
Like using doomerism to get regulatory capture for Big AI.
> Seems like an obvious response from OpenAI ngl.
What response? Big AI has been paying influencers forever and they can afford more than Hossenfelder:
I'm not definitively claiming one side started it. One side is clearly marking it as advertisement, companies advertise and influencer marketing is just another channel now.
I'm saying, the game is the game and everyone's playing it.
I don't like it either. I think all influencers should be declaring payments.
Just know you are citing one of the most disgraced science communicator YouTuber here. I for one don‘t trust anything she says. In fact when Sabine Hossenfelder says something, I tend to believe the opposite.
World's best AI models doesn't offset public resentment caused by putting data centers in residential areas, openly buying off the White House and Congress with PAC "donations" and constantly threatening to eliminate everyone's job.
So Mamdani or Sanders putting out videos on tiktok to engage with young progressives, that's also a "PR campaign"? Or is "PR campaign" one of the phrases where you only use against other people, eg. "we're doing voter outreach, they're doing PR campaign"?
They're buying the credibility of the influencers.
Influencers have the greatest influence on their audience, especially repeat viewers who follow or subscribe to them. You need to establish credibility with an audience before you're worth anything to the marketers. This takes time to build.
OpenAI's hypothetical robot influencers have no audience.
This is the mistake they made. Anthropic and OpenAI are great technically. I love them. But they are absolute crap at making most people feeling like its relevant to them or that AI companies care about them. So its' really easy to be dismissive of the tech and oppose things like data centers. I think the influencer route is a quick fix. They need to appeal to everyday problems but, understandably, the founders like Dario and Altman think very high level. They think they are doing what's best in a way, but not in a way that's relateable to most people. LLMs need to be more human friendly; example, solve little problems like actually writing without sounding like AI
I think the OP was referring not to their public image, but to the incongruity of paying human influencers instead of deploying computer-generated influencers created by their world-beating models supposedly worth $30T.
OpenAI is trying to level up their growth marketing to match Anthropic’s. Tactics in growth marketing (speaking from my experience leading in this space) are not public knowledge as it’s a cat-and-mouse game on multiple fronts (ie CAC goes up and changes the economics when a high ROI source is found, etc. etc. etc.), which makes hiring the right person vital as information asymmetries are where the ROI is (ie more revenue per dollar spent on marketing). Anthropic hired the right person for strategy and execution long ago in LLM-years, and there is a good podcast on the story here:
https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/anthropics-1b-to-19b-grow...
And that is incredibly unfortunate to their business strategy.
But... food for thought: people are good at detecting slop, because it looks like slop. If it does not, people won't detect it. So there is a confirmation bias, where the "obvious slop" looks obvious, but the "better slop" goes by undetected.
Yes, if the product is seen as bad for the world, it won't sell. But it's pretty bad for people, and I don't know how you'd hide that for the people being harmed.
There are lots of products we know are bad for the world that still sell plenty well. Petroleum products (to include plastic), cigarettes, alcohol, guns, etc.
People generally understand that all of the above are not clear absolute negatives. There are some positives to each. And to LLMs.
> Yes, if the product is seen as bad for the world, it won't sell. But it's pretty bad for people, and I don't know how you'd hide that for the people being harmed.
That's not true. There are all kinds of products that benefit certain people, so sell, but are overall harmful to the world or a harmful to much larger number of people than those who benefit.
> and I don't know how you'd hide that for the people being harmed.
The trick is to make the people being harmed too powerless to stop the harm being done to them. Then your problem is solved and everyone (who matters) is happy.
Many of the vocal critics claiming AI will make us all dumb and is terrible go "I have two Max subscriptions myself.." at some point in the discussion.
Hypocrisy is not actually a counterargument though. "Don't do this thing I do" doesn't mean they're wrong when they argue against that thing, and if anything can be a source of anecdata to bolster their case.
That's a strawman argument. I'm pretty critical of LLMs and i don't use such tools. However, even in the strawman version, why dismiss the experiences of people suffering first hand from those tools?
I mean, to make a terribly bad analogy, i don't immediately discount the bad experiences of soldiers in regards to killing people, or of addicts in regards to drug abuse.
> why dismiss the experiences of people suffering first hand from those tools?
Because if you’re paying voluntarily for a tool that you don’t need, you have agency to remove your “suffering” by canceling your subscription and not use it! So the “suffer” complaint in those instances can be dismissed.
That's like saying you just have to stop being a wage slave for a corporation and suddenly you're free.. but you still have to pay the bills. That's a fallacious argument.
All people i know around me who use LLMs and have subscriptions are forced upon them by their employers. But even for "willing" users, questions of addiction come into play.
Nobody lives on their own planet. There are countless systems that we all depend on that suck by design. No one would say you're not allowed to criticize American health insurance or social media just because you're forced to participate in them if you don't wanna go down like Ted Kaczynski.
This is such a moving goalpost anyways. If someone is a prominent AI critic and doesn't regularly use the tools, that becomes the main line of attack. But the second they get a subscription ALL their criticism is cancelled a priori.
> However, even in the strawman version, why dismiss the experiences of people suffering first hand from those tools?
Because the people doing that dismissing are being dishonest. Their goal is to attack and discredit their enemy, period. Critical testimony from a user has some vague similarities to hypocrisy, so can be twisted for propaganda purposes and portrayed as hypocrisy.
This is insanely hyperbolic. OepnAI is not a "reich" there is no empire here, it's a company and some data centers. They don't have paramilitary thugs, territorial ambitions, or genocidal intent. They're just a run of the mill company run by an asshole.
In many municipalities across the country they have purchased the police department, made them to sign NDAs, and had them arrest people for speaking against data centers in open forums.
Go talk to an artist, a junior developer, or a musician. And then realize that the goal is to generalize the damage to every other intellectual domain.
This same argument is easily dismissed by most because it boils down to "why not dig with spoons?"
It only becomes compelling to me if you believe in true AGI/ASI, at which point all human labor becomes irrelevant, and then we have something quite new to think about.
But simply "it automates away a small portion of jobs" is not compelling.
Don’t forget the effect on students! It has the potential to be a great learning tool, but nothing is in place for that to happen. It more likely just kills all reinforcement learning
I have the opposite experience. My intellectual curiosity has increased immensely since starting to use Chat GPT. I can snap a picture and instantly know what kind of bug I am looking at, whether I am looking at a Red-Tailed hawk or a Red-Shouldered hawk and how to tell the difference, what the gauges on my water tank and boiler mean, and numerous other things that I am curious about daily.
These are things around me that I wouldn't have bothered to investigate just due to time and effort. And now I appreciate all these little curiosities more than ever.
So tell me about the red tailed hawk. Why is it interesting, and how will you apply that in your life?
According to current theories of learning, the best learning happens at the point of struggle, where you internalize that you went down a wrong path, and needed to backtrack. What part of the struggle of learning did you experience as a result of this, and how did it reshape other thought patterns?
I don't know what to tell you, it's just a tool man. Like a Google search or a trip to the library.
Why don't you tell me about your struggle to research and discover all the science and technology behind indoor plumbing so you don't have to take a shit in the yard, or in your pants?
Being able to look something up real quick isn’t the same as knowing something, is it, especially in the specific absence of some reinforcement mechanism to retain it?
>These are things around me that I wouldn't have bothered to investigate just due to time and effort. And now I appreciate all these little curiosities more than ever.
I think you're conflating access to information with genuine learning.
I mean for me personally I have always had an obsession for knowing these things anyways, it just lowered the barrier to entry for me a little bit in terms of information gathering
First I went from asking my parents then reading lots of books then specifically researching on google and forums now for most general knowledge information I can just ask AI
> ChatGPT was shown to support and even encourage dangerous drug use, with statements such as "Hell yes—let's go full trippy mode" and advice on reducing his Xanax tolerance so that a single tablet will "fuck you up"
> It has literally contributed to suicide and murders
So have many pharmaceuticals that are generally regarded as beneficial. Suicide is a side effect of more than a few, but doctors disregard that, believing that the results are worth the risk.
Honestly, a lot of people could stand to be a lot more informed about what they're getting into. People could use a lot more skepticism when interacting with AI, social media, news feeds, and basically every other form of media, especially those originating at the top of some pyramid or another.
I don't tend to like controls or regulations, though. Not that they aren't needed, but I don't trust the people responsible for writing and enforcing them. More often than not, they are just the top of the pyramid squashing everything beneath it.
How proportional is it to deaths caused by other technologies by usage?
With large enough numbers the existence of any extremely rare event becomes certain. Consequently claiming there are instances carries no information value.
Proportionality is the only sensible measure. How much more dangerous are Chatbots compared to, say, teapots?
That’s close to whataboutism.. just because other technology can also be dangerous doesn’t absolve OpenAI/ChatGPT.
Also, ChatGPT is clearly exerting a massive (potential) influence on people if their MAU numbers are to be believed, so rightfully it should get attention on the potential harm.
I'd like to argue the other way around, it can be bad for some people while still being extinction-level bad for entire species. I'm not talking about sentient AI going Matrix, i'm talking about the real material impact of datacenters being built so that a small minority can enjoy funny tools.
Oh, they're more than a drop in the ocean for sure. Which doesn't mean there's not other things to address, where population is definitely not the main problematic factor, but consumerism is (and throwaway culture). This kind of whataboutism is fallacious, you can do better.
EDIT: As a small anecdotal point, any new human activity that is measured in GW of power consumption is not a drop in the ocean. Admitted, some of these data centers projects are "only" in the 100s MW scale, but all of this combined is increasing electricity consumption by a vast amount overall.
It's not just the data centers, but it's part of a bigger trend of massive industrial projects depleting natural resources for questionable benefits for humanity. There's basically two approaches to ecological problems: either pretend some wonder technology (AI?) is going to save us all and keep driving straight into the wall, or seriously question any industrial activity in a cost/benefit analysis.
Our society is currently headed in the first scenario, building ever more useless shit and accelerating environmental collapse, pretending CO2 capture, AI, unlimited energy storage, agro-bots, desalination and on-site recycling of complex materials will magically keep life sustainable despite any scientific evidence showing otherwise.
Have you seen the Japanese ads for chatgpt? The rapping is awful I don’t know if that’s because of Japanese rappers, AI lyrics or just the music itself it’s just so forced
I don't even know if they need an influencer army. I am seeing people out on the streets deferring to ChatGPT for even basic things in a way that Google never achieved.
I was at a hotel bar the other night and some guy kept bothering the bartender about what was on TV. Every time the bartender told him what they could do he went off for a few minutes, sent it to ChatGPT, and went back to the bar saying "well ChatGPT said this." I can't believe the bartender didn't lose his patience with it. The guy was fucking desperate to see some football on the telly and GPT kept telling him he was right to keep challenging the bartender.
Another guy looks lost with his family and he comes up to us and asks where a good restaurant is. We ask if he wants good local stuff or not and he says, he doesn't know, he just asked ChatGPT and felt like he got stranded. The restaurant it pointed out was like 2 minutes walk away. He was like the one guy in the family who seemed to speak english and was probably the one that was just dragging them around on a GPT adventure. The rest of them looked bored, like they were tired of his shit.
If it doesn't work out, it's not GPT that was wrong, it was everybody else. It pits technology against humanity again.
Scam Altman and the company culture he shaped - that’s what you get when you put a shady marketing hype-guy in a position where an actual scientist (or at least benevolent human) is urgently needed.
No wonder he relies on hype and manipulating social media mainly, as all actual scientists have left openAI years ago when they found out who Altman really is and unfortunately unsuccessfully tried to remove him.
What oAi nowadays attracts is unfortunately not the prime talent like in the beginning that were in it for a better world, but semi-talented virtue-signaling people who are attracted by the compensation and name recognition and, as we have seen it quite a few of their recent "innovation" claims, don’t mind misinterpreting, mislabeling and outright copy/steal other people’s innovations and putting big IPO-associated oAi stickers on it without deserving any of it.
put 'good for the world' in quotes because obviously it's not
A more neutral headline would be: OpenAI Is Enlisting Influencers to Promote Its Public Image.
The rest of the article reads like anti-AI slop. For instance:
> The company isn't asking influencers to assuage fears that a rogue AI could destroy humanity.
It is weird how prominent anti-AI sentiment is online and in media. It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world. So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it. And I don't buy that it's being jammed down the throats by most employers. Sometimes maybe, but I see the reverse, where people WANT to use frontier models and are being prevented through archaic security hoops.
The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
> It is weird how prominent anti-AI sentiment is online and in media. It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world. So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it
It is popular because it’s useful but people still have unfavorable attitudes towards it in polls. It’s like Amazon. We use Amazon cuz it’s convenient but do we like the way Bezos treats his employees?
> So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it.
That's not implied by engagement. It's possible to use the advantage AI gives you in a competitive landscape while still fearing the future it will bring.
It's clear that people are using it for personal reasons
> The Brookings Institution / AmeriSpeak Survey: A nationwide survey found that 57% of Americans use generative AI for personal tasks (such as web browsing, daily use, or information searches), while only 21% report using it in a professional or work role.
Is there "competitive" reasons to have an AI girlfriend? There is an implied preference that you like the technology by using it by choice and you don't think it will end civilization. You may tell pollsters you're worried but it's the same people telling pollsters sea levels are rising while investing in beach front real estate. Meaningless.
> put 'good for the world' in quotes because obviously it's not
It's in quotes because it appears to be an specific phrase used by a campaign pitch (supposedly).
It's different from normal advertising of a commercial product which obviously will call their product "good", but "good for the world" implies something deeper.
It’s being jammed into products where it’s not wanted. I use AI every day with good results, but I do not want it in my browser, my OS, my text editor, or AI summaries in my search engine. I want it in a separate web app where I can use it or not.
So am I pro- or anti- AI? Both. It depends what it is.
> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
It was discussed a while ago on HN, with a more well known source, that I cannot find right now, but on a quick DDG search this is a quick article I could conjure.
> It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world. So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it.
This in itself is not an argument. British Opium was selling like hotcakes in China, so surely people people must have had a general favorable impression if they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it?
I agree, but there's also a whole domestic "AI doom industry". The pipeline from AI researcher to guest on popular podcasts promoting your stop-AI-from-killing-us startup/"non-profit" is less than a year.
> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
It may be a difficult concept for an astroturfer to understand, but people are activists for free. If you have found any anti-AI financiers, please share them so I can apply. Of course you already know there are none.
> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
The companies are doing this themselves in a (stupid) attempt to do regulatory capture/ set up a cartel. Dario Amodei recently published an essay pushing this idea.
> And I don't buy that it's being jammed down the throats by most employers. Sometimes maybe, but I see the reverse, where people WANT to use frontier models and are being prevented through archaic security hoops.
What is N here? 1?
> It is weird how prominent anti-AI sentiment is online and in media. It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world.
Is it though? Do we actually know that? Is it growing faster than facebook did or google search? Is it even possible to measure when some of the "adoption" is probably people triggering it incidentally (e.g. AI mode in google search shouldn't count as adoption here).
People are worried about it because it is a highly disruptive technology with unproven ROI for businesses as of yet (restricting claims to LLMs here). It has a lot of negative potential side effects for many different groups of people. The media is reflecting these viewpoints. If there's any astroturfing going on, it's from the pro LLM camp.
I see no reason why they can’t target both at the same time. Personally I know two people who never would’ve paid for ChatGPT a year ago but now do so. I think for the average person it’s going to be a slow and difficult conversion process to paying customers.
anyone know whats going on with muse. twitter has gone crazy with fake things ppl've supposedly achieved like getting airline to refund 4k, negotiating 45k furniture to 5k, booking flights for 20 dollars. These are the same ppl that were hyping openclaw, not sure what happened to that.
and how muse topping charts. Its all befuddling to me.
There's been multiple YouTubers saying they've been paid recently to make... AI Doomerism videos (e.g. Sabine).
I imagine this is simply part of the campaign, AI doomerism followed by AI Bloomerism, it could even be part of the same organisation's campaign; selling the solution to a problem they put in your mind. Hype, criti-hype, it's all so tiresome.
>could even be part of the same organisation's campaign
Eh we know its part of the same campaigns. "Please provide us with regulatory capture because our tech is an existential threat" has been going on for a while now.
interesting how there has been a big push these last couple days against openai on this platform.
eg. in the gpt 6 release thread i saw multiple people make absurd claims about usage, like saying they go through their entire max usage plan in a day. i think i saw one comment that claimed hours. some recently made accounts seemed very eager to tell everyone the newly released models weren't any better despite being out only for a few hours.
in another thread about how anthropic gated reading AGENTS.md with telemetry, it's full of people defending anthropic. you'd never see people do that for openai. one comment even said we need a "general drumbeat against openai", keep in mind this was in a thread where anthropic was caught doing something shady and that comment could have easily applied to anthropic instead.
now this thread has gotten very popular very fast - which makes me think that there is something fishy going on (not with op). weird rise of anti-openai / pro-anthropic sentiment on this site at the exact same time both companies release new models...
I feel like the "We hacked hugging face" thing and this influencer thing are targeting different things but have the same goal of hyping up the company for the IPO.
- The HF incident was to get the attention of investors and convey the message: "we have this incredibly powerful technology, imagine where we will be in 5 years"
- With this influencer campaign it's just a drive to get more people to use ChatGPT / sign up to ChatGPT so when IPO time comes, they can show strong user growth.
Over the past few months I've seen various reports that OpenAI's financial position isn't great and if those reports have any merit, then likely the higher ups at OpenAI are panicking that they might become a WeWork 2.0. Everything they are doing now is an attempt to justify their $1T valuation to investors during the IPO.
I think it’s more that YC is so heavily invested in AI-related stuff it cannot then have a message board affiliated with it that has anti-AI content on it. Maybe it has always been like this for anything YC had its fingers in and it was just less obvious?
> […] The company isn't asking influencers to assuage fears that a rogue AI could destroy humanity. Instead, it's prompting them to showcase why ChatGPT is "cool" […]
Emphasis mine - ouch. So either influencers are automatons like LLMs who just do as their current-highest-bidder says based on a prompt (!), or in fact perhaps we skipped that bit and they’re all LLMs, for convenience. Or in this post-thinking world we just say prompt instead of ask or instruct.
Not sure which dystopian option displeases me least.
One could call it Elonism as an evolution of entrepreneurial capitalism. Had Elizabeth Holmes taken the time to build an influencer army instead of doing PR the traditional way, she might not be in prison.
Do influences really work? In general I don't care what they have
to say; usually they try to do an ad. Ublock origin either blocks
that, or I just jump past their propaganda if they babble about
some product I don't care (which, by default, is 100% - I really
never care about any advertisement at all. I would not know WHY
I would WANT to care. I am aware of "this is missing in your life"
but that still does not change anything - I am not interested in
hearing this).
Lately I noticed more and more youtube folks try in-video advertisements.
These are a bit harder to catch by ublock origin. In the past, I
would manually skip this, but recently I decided that if someone
has a need to sell some ad-crap, I simply no longer care and insta-close
the tab. That is actually much more efficient. And if many people do
so, we'll see fewer pester-ads in general. I understand the "but this
is how I make my money" - even that still does not make me want to
care about wasting my life on any ads whatsoever, no matter which
fancypants excuse is used.
In concluding, I now suspect that OpenAI must suck, since they depend
on propaganda outlets (aka "influencers"; I don't call them "influencers",
they are scummy people who work on something like mercenaries would,
just on the propaganda department. Any regular guy cleaning the streets
with a broom, has 10000x more credibility than these "influencers" - but
does not make as much money as these bribed individuals).
Well, if it wasn't for llms my wife would still be bedridden 24/7 and doctors would still be thinking the problem was mostly psychological. So if OpenAI wants to pay me, just reach out and I'll share everything to my dozens of social media followers
Not sure why I'm being down voted. She was initially diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome aka "the suicide disease" for how much pain it causes, and heavily medicated. Her official genetic test didn't found anything, but trough years of iteration of a mixture of codex and Claude code over her raw genetic data we built a working theory of what might be wrong and trough cupious daily notes, labs, and over several iterations of feeding the notes to different ais (whatever was the best Ai at the time, with the exception of fable due to the refusals), we manage to get her to a much better situation where she can now tolerate touch up to the toe line and can also tolerate phisioteraphy. Turns out her genes point towards a very weird energy and electrolyte deficit that must be approached from a very unique angle. The first real impact of an llm on the condition was via o1-preview
US business model: go into billions of debt, brainwash the population via YouTube, Twitch, TikTok and Hacker News influencers. Intimidate foreign governments to allow the current snake oil. Wait a decade until you have minor profits and the stock price is through the roof because #growth-mindset.
Elon is a stupid fascist and he only got where he is by failing upwards repeatedly.
Now, that one will be a whole lot harder to debunk.
I don't want to be mean, but don't you think you're being a little naive here?
And hey, I'm unemployed at the moment. I'm a zero income earner. And yet, I'm still here.
I like that you think that only one side is doing it. And without clear partner hashtags or sponsorship declarations neither [1].
Seems like an obvious response from OpenAI ngl.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdmYMHrWKg
Now, don't take it as me saying what OpenAI is doing is good. It's more if you're in the industry you know that if you're not doing things like this, you're the only one. Whole damned thing is corrupt.
Like using doomerism to get regulatory capture for Big AI.
> Seems like an obvious response from OpenAI ngl.
What response? Big AI has been paying influencers forever and they can afford more than Hossenfelder:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/06/google-microsoft-pay-creator...
Even chess channels have been full of undisclosed vibe coding and robot product placements for at least two years.
I'm saying, the game is the game and everyone's playing it.
I don't like it either. I think all influencers should be declaring payments.
Ahh the paid pretend fence sitters have arrived.
Influencers have the greatest influence on their audience, especially repeat viewers who follow or subscribe to them. You need to establish credibility with an audience before you're worth anything to the marketers. This takes time to build.
OpenAI's hypothetical robot influencers have no audience.
I guess not all people realize how deeply entrenched use of influencers and other means of astro-turfing are in use at all times.
Maybe we need a catchy little phrase to explain how it works.
"If you're using influencers you're evil. If you're not using influencers you're stupid".
Thank you for your service, your influencer token stipend has been applied to your account.
But... food for thought: people are good at detecting slop, because it looks like slop. If it does not, people won't detect it. So there is a confirmation bias, where the "obvious slop" looks obvious, but the "better slop" goes by undetected.
People generally understand that all of the above are not clear absolute negatives. There are some positives to each. And to LLMs.
That's not true. There are all kinds of products that benefit certain people, so sell, but are overall harmful to the world or a harmful to much larger number of people than those who benefit.
> and I don't know how you'd hide that for the people being harmed.
The trick is to make the people being harmed too powerless to stop the harm being done to them. Then your problem is solved and everyone (who matters) is happy.
Many of the vocal critics claiming AI will make us all dumb and is terrible go "I have two Max subscriptions myself.." at some point in the discussion.
It seems to me that more people express a negative opinion than are ready to forego the convenience.
Maybe not unlike climate action, where you will see strong agreement ideologically, but little tolerance for personal inconvenience.
I mean, to make a terribly bad analogy, i don't immediately discount the bad experiences of soldiers in regards to killing people, or of addicts in regards to drug abuse.
Here I'm pointing out that often it seems the usefulness outweighs the negative sentiment as even many vocal critics seem to use the tool.
As for dismissing supposed first hand experiences of suffering, I see none here. The critics often argue on other's behalf.
Because if you’re paying voluntarily for a tool that you don’t need, you have agency to remove your “suffering” by canceling your subscription and not use it! So the “suffer” complaint in those instances can be dismissed.
All people i know around me who use LLMs and have subscriptions are forced upon them by their employers. But even for "willing" users, questions of addiction come into play.
This is such a moving goalpost anyways. If someone is a prominent AI critic and doesn't regularly use the tools, that becomes the main line of attack. But the second they get a subscription ALL their criticism is cancelled a priori.
Because the people doing that dismissing are being dishonest. Their goal is to attack and discredit their enemy, period. Critical testimony from a user has some vague similarities to hypocrisy, so can be twisted for propaganda purposes and portrayed as hypocrisy.
No, he's not a literalist throwback. But he is planning to glorify and expand his OpenAI reich.
In many municipalities across the country they have purchased the police department, made them to sign NDAs, and had them arrest people for speaking against data centers in open forums.
It only becomes compelling to me if you believe in true AGI/ASI, at which point all human labor becomes irrelevant, and then we have something quite new to think about.
But simply "it automates away a small portion of jobs" is not compelling.
I have the opposite experience. My intellectual curiosity has increased immensely since starting to use Chat GPT. I can snap a picture and instantly know what kind of bug I am looking at, whether I am looking at a Red-Tailed hawk or a Red-Shouldered hawk and how to tell the difference, what the gauges on my water tank and boiler mean, and numerous other things that I am curious about daily.
These are things around me that I wouldn't have bothered to investigate just due to time and effort. And now I appreciate all these little curiosities more than ever.
According to current theories of learning, the best learning happens at the point of struggle, where you internalize that you went down a wrong path, and needed to backtrack. What part of the struggle of learning did you experience as a result of this, and how did it reshape other thought patterns?
Why don't you tell me about your struggle to research and discover all the science and technology behind indoor plumbing so you don't have to take a shit in the yard, or in your pants?
Reminds me of this cartoon: https://imgur.com/life-before-google-q0eP1Rg
__
"Life Before Google: A Short Story"
dog: I just thought of something I'd like to know more about.
rabbit: That's a damn shame.
THE END
I think you're conflating access to information with genuine learning.
First I went from asking my parents then reading lots of books then specifically researching on google and forums now for most general knowledge information I can just ask AI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots
Here's just a taste:
> ChatGPT was shown to support and even encourage dangerous drug use, with statements such as "Hell yes—let's go full trippy mode" and advice on reducing his Xanax tolerance so that a single tablet will "fuck you up"
So have ballpoint pens.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-32489335 https://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/jan/22/ballpoint-pen-ki... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders
So have many pharmaceuticals that are generally regarded as beneficial. Suicide is a side effect of more than a few, but doctors disregard that, believing that the results are worth the risk.
Should we add that to ChatGPT too?
I don't tend to like controls or regulations, though. Not that they aren't needed, but I don't trust the people responsible for writing and enforcing them. More often than not, they are just the top of the pyramid squashing everything beneath it.
With large enough numbers the existence of any extremely rare event becomes certain. Consequently claiming there are instances carries no information value.
Proportionality is the only sensible measure. How much more dangerous are Chatbots compared to, say, teapots?
Also, ChatGPT is clearly exerting a massive (potential) influence on people if their MAU numbers are to be believed, so rightfully it should get attention on the potential harm.
EDIT: As a small anecdotal point, any new human activity that is measured in GW of power consumption is not a drop in the ocean. Admitted, some of these data centers projects are "only" in the 100s MW scale, but all of this combined is increasing electricity consumption by a vast amount overall.
Our society is currently headed in the first scenario, building ever more useless shit and accelerating environmental collapse, pretending CO2 capture, AI, unlimited energy storage, agro-bots, desalination and on-site recycling of complex materials will magically keep life sustainable despite any scientific evidence showing otherwise.
see: gambling, food delivery, ride sharing, video games, online therapy, etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_2W2jnxwJg
I was at a hotel bar the other night and some guy kept bothering the bartender about what was on TV. Every time the bartender told him what they could do he went off for a few minutes, sent it to ChatGPT, and went back to the bar saying "well ChatGPT said this." I can't believe the bartender didn't lose his patience with it. The guy was fucking desperate to see some football on the telly and GPT kept telling him he was right to keep challenging the bartender.
Another guy looks lost with his family and he comes up to us and asks where a good restaurant is. We ask if he wants good local stuff or not and he says, he doesn't know, he just asked ChatGPT and felt like he got stranded. The restaurant it pointed out was like 2 minutes walk away. He was like the one guy in the family who seemed to speak english and was probably the one that was just dragging them around on a GPT adventure. The rest of them looked bored, like they were tired of his shit.
If it doesn't work out, it's not GPT that was wrong, it was everybody else. It pits technology against humanity again.
No wonder he relies on hype and manipulating social media mainly, as all actual scientists have left openAI years ago when they found out who Altman really is and unfortunately unsuccessfully tried to remove him.
What oAi nowadays attracts is unfortunately not the prime talent like in the beginning that were in it for a better world, but semi-talented virtue-signaling people who are attracted by the compensation and name recognition and, as we have seen it quite a few of their recent "innovation" claims, don’t mind misinterpreting, mislabeling and outright copy/steal other people’s innovations and putting big IPO-associated oAi stickers on it without deserving any of it.
"enlisting an influencer army"
put 'good for the world' in quotes because obviously it's not
A more neutral headline would be: OpenAI Is Enlisting Influencers to Promote Its Public Image.
The rest of the article reads like anti-AI slop. For instance:
> The company isn't asking influencers to assuage fears that a rogue AI could destroy humanity.
It is weird how prominent anti-AI sentiment is online and in media. It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world. So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it. And I don't buy that it's being jammed down the throats by most employers. Sometimes maybe, but I see the reverse, where people WANT to use frontier models and are being prevented through archaic security hoops.
The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
It is popular because it’s useful but people still have unfavorable attitudes towards it in polls. It’s like Amazon. We use Amazon cuz it’s convenient but do we like the way Bezos treats his employees?
Something being useful doesn’t mean people like it. Burning Coal is useful. Anybody who’s read anything about coal as a power source doesn’t like it.
Like coal, AI has a bunch of problems that collectively make it undesirable as a technology
That's not implied by engagement. It's possible to use the advantage AI gives you in a competitive landscape while still fearing the future it will bring.
It's clear that people are using it for personal reasons
> The Brookings Institution / AmeriSpeak Survey: A nationwide survey found that 57% of Americans use generative AI for personal tasks (such as web browsing, daily use, or information searches), while only 21% report using it in a professional or work role.
Is there "competitive" reasons to have an AI girlfriend? There is an implied preference that you like the technology by using it by choice and you don't think it will end civilization. You may tell pollsters you're worried but it's the same people telling pollsters sea levels are rising while investing in beach front real estate. Meaningless.
It's in quotes because it appears to be an specific phrase used by a campaign pitch (supposedly).
It's different from normal advertising of a commercial product which obviously will call their product "good", but "good for the world" implies something deeper.
So am I pro- or anti- AI? Both. It depends what it is.
It was discussed a while ago on HN, with a more well known source, that I cannot find right now, but on a quick DDG search this is a quick article I could conjure.
https://www.gate.com/news/detail/david-sacks-warns-ai-doom-n...
This in itself is not an argument. British Opium was selling like hotcakes in China, so surely people people must have had a general favorable impression if they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it?
Opium is a dangerous drug that harms its user. AI is a useful tool that helps people be more productive or explore their interests.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12255134/
Either way though, we've disproven the neat rhetorical trick of conflating usage numbers and popular perception.
Step two: identify the broad category they share.
Step three: ask, “If you accept one, why don’t you accept the other?”
Now, what does that have to do with pointing out your ad populum fallacy though?
Give you a hint: starts with C, ends with a P, with a C in the middle
> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?
It may be a difficult concept for an astroturfer to understand, but people are activists for free. If you have found any anti-AI financiers, please share them so I can apply. Of course you already know there are none.
The companies are doing this themselves in a (stupid) attempt to do regulatory capture/ set up a cartel. Dario Amodei recently published an essay pushing this idea.
> And I don't buy that it's being jammed down the throats by most employers. Sometimes maybe, but I see the reverse, where people WANT to use frontier models and are being prevented through archaic security hoops.
What is N here? 1?
> It is weird how prominent anti-AI sentiment is online and in media. It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world.
Is it though? Do we actually know that? Is it growing faster than facebook did or google search? Is it even possible to measure when some of the "adoption" is probably people triggering it incidentally (e.g. AI mode in google search shouldn't count as adoption here).
People are worried about it because it is a highly disruptive technology with unproven ROI for businesses as of yet (restricting claims to LLMs here). It has a lot of negative potential side effects for many different groups of people. The media is reflecting these viewpoints. If there's any astroturfing going on, it's from the pro LLM camp.
But now ... this. I am clueless.
Well done OpenAI comms team. Just lost a subscriber.
and how muse topping charts. Its all befuddling to me.
I imagine this is simply part of the campaign, AI doomerism followed by AI Bloomerism, it could even be part of the same organisation's campaign; selling the solution to a problem they put in your mind. Hype, criti-hype, it's all so tiresome.
Eh we know its part of the same campaigns. "Please provide us with regulatory capture because our tech is an existential threat" has been going on for a while now.
eg. in the gpt 6 release thread i saw multiple people make absurd claims about usage, like saying they go through their entire max usage plan in a day. i think i saw one comment that claimed hours. some recently made accounts seemed very eager to tell everyone the newly released models weren't any better despite being out only for a few hours.
in another thread about how anthropic gated reading AGENTS.md with telemetry, it's full of people defending anthropic. you'd never see people do that for openai. one comment even said we need a "general drumbeat against openai", keep in mind this was in a thread where anthropic was caught doing something shady and that comment could have easily applied to anthropic instead.
now this thread has gotten very popular very fast - which makes me think that there is something fishy going on (not with op). weird rise of anti-openai / pro-anthropic sentiment on this site at the exact same time both companies release new models...
https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/09/22/1144867/dont-be-...
eg:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49814211
Not even flagged, just disappeared.
- The HF incident was to get the attention of investors and convey the message: "we have this incredibly powerful technology, imagine where we will be in 5 years"
- With this influencer campaign it's just a drive to get more people to use ChatGPT / sign up to ChatGPT so when IPO time comes, they can show strong user growth.
Over the past few months I've seen various reports that OpenAI's financial position isn't great and if those reports have any merit, then likely the higher ups at OpenAI are panicking that they might become a WeWork 2.0. Everything they are doing now is an attempt to justify their $1T valuation to investors during the IPO.
Emphasis mine - ouch. So either influencers are automatons like LLMs who just do as their current-highest-bidder says based on a prompt (!), or in fact perhaps we skipped that bit and they’re all LLMs, for convenience. Or in this post-thinking world we just say prompt instead of ask or instruct.
Not sure which dystopian option displeases me least.
Elon has some functional products in markets where he has no competition, and they work.
Starlink works and sells. FSD drives untrained routes. No competition in either market.
Lately I noticed more and more youtube folks try in-video advertisements. These are a bit harder to catch by ublock origin. In the past, I would manually skip this, but recently I decided that if someone has a need to sell some ad-crap, I simply no longer care and insta-close the tab. That is actually much more efficient. And if many people do so, we'll see fewer pester-ads in general. I understand the "but this is how I make my money" - even that still does not make me want to care about wasting my life on any ads whatsoever, no matter which fancypants excuse is used.
In concluding, I now suspect that OpenAI must suck, since they depend on propaganda outlets (aka "influencers"; I don't call them "influencers", they are scummy people who work on something like mercenaries would, just on the propaganda department. Any regular guy cleaning the streets with a broom, has 10000x more credibility than these "influencers" - but does not make as much money as these bribed individuals).
It would make for an interesting matchup.