Comment by jackb4040
4 days ago
> positive for OpenAI
To echo OP's article, these companies have proven time and time again that they DO NOT CARE if people like them, they only care that investors believe their technology is powerful.
Given that, point #2 is not a negative, it's a neutral. It's also fully compatible with point #1.
I know that may seem like a nitpick, but their entire media strategy relies on this. If they can convince you they're taking a risk by disclosing these stories when they're actually not, they can inflate their own credibility.
Point #3 is what actually happened, but it will never be possible to prove. The only hope we have is that a decade in it'll get harder to convince people that the revolution is just around the corner. The fact that we're getting this from the Guardian already is a good sign.
> Given that, point #2 is not a negative, it's a neutral. It's also fully compatible with point #1.
I think that depends on the interests and sophistication of the subgroup-of-investors.
If the investor is hoping for AI that can be trusted to run a bank, they don't want one that can get twisted into giving away money because a customer has been talking about the path to enlightenment and salvation through abandoning worldly attachments.
AI investors are not sophisticated users nor product managers. They are by and large not technical at all. They are bureaucrats at a teachers' pension fund in the midwest, unscrupulous dealmakers at private credit firms, and Masayoshi Son. Actually go read what Masayoshi Son says about AI if you want to understand the level of due-diligence we're dealing with.
Oh, I'm already quite aware that there are very questionable forms of goose biology involved...
Most banks are worried that AI can hack their security, and when using unrestricted models in testing the models are doing a decent job of it.
I'm inclined to agree. I ran across a picture of Sam Altman's face combined with Elizabeth Holmes' hairstyle the other day, and imho it was providing a significant premium to the usual 1000 words:picture exchange rate.
For all the criticism that can reasonably be leveled at OpenAI, at least they have a real, working, powerful product, unlike Holmes.
In fact that seems to be key to the most successful 21st century grifts: build a pile of nonsense around real products to inflate valuations. All the nonsense that Altman, Amodei, and Musk spout is to stoke the fires of FOMO and blow hot air into the bubbles.
Especially for openAI, considering they’ve gone so far as volunteering for partial nationalization to curry favor with the current admin
I'm disappointed that this is the level of discourse happening here, when the default assumption is such conspiratorial thinking. I expect that from tiktok and low-information social media, not here.
When your default explanation for everything is "companies are lying about everything", you end up just as incorrect as believing they're always telling the truth.
It's not outlandish that models have these capabilities, the number of CVEs I see as a sysadmin has exploded and we're seeing novel math discoveries nearly every week now. OpenAI does not need to pretend to commit a felony to demonstrate it, that's pure conspiratorial thinking.
I don’t believe I argued that an LLM couldn’t find and exploit a vulnerability and even break out of some layer of technical controls. That seems realistic and has been demonstrated before and I mentioned that LLMs are used in offensive security work.
Also, I listed the view points I had to show that it seems other more reasonable first assumptions don’t seem likely, therefore, the last potential of this being either faked or carefully not avoided seems more likely than the others (based on the current information we have).
Could you clarify which point or assumption you are objecting to?