4 ms·

By now, I'm pretty confident that some people would keep screeching "it's just a marketing stunt, AI capabilities and AI risks aren't real, they're just doing t

By now, I'm pretty confident that some people would keep screeching "it's just a marketing stunt, AI capabilities and AI risks aren't real, they're just doing this to prop up their stocks" even if they find a Cyberdyne Systems T-800 armed with a shotgun breaking down their front door. "It's a marketing stunt" is just denial trying to look like it's being clever.

throwfaraway4 2mo ago
My take is why not both? It’s good cover to use something that’s eventually going to happen and their name will be associated with the first.
JackSlateur 2mo ago
Never trust somebody who has so much to gain to be entrusted by you. Best lies are not 100% wrong, they have just the right amount of "right" to fool you.
throwa356262 2mo ago
The article claims that AI companies have run stunts like this since day 1. It does not claim that capabilities are not real.
- nsoonhui 2mo ago
  Then exactly what's the point of the Guardian article? What should be the focus is whether the capabilities are real; whether companies or anyone else benefit from it is quite secondary. Of course they will! Who wouldn't love a nice story that paints their products in the most glowing light ( which is the actual reality)?
  - hashstring 2mo ago
    No, we have benchmarks for (pseudo-)objective measurements of capabilities. We have flashy news stories on repeat for marketing. The point is that they are separate things. If you start mixing them up, analysis becomes more biased and less objective. EDIT: And do not mistake this for transparency of ClosedAI either. Their incident report was so generic that no one serious can learn much from it anyway except that “a zeroday” was allegedly used. Very helpful…
HumblyTossed 2mo ago
Oh come now. It is very much in OpenAI's best interest to make it sound to naive people that that "AI" decided to go rogue on it's own.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
  - cindyllm 2mo ago
    [dead]
- zone411 2mo ago
  How is it in their interest? Scaring customers, worrying employees, and inviting regulators to act is in their interest?
  - HumblyTossed 2mo ago
    Current admin will not regulate them. This is them essentially bragging how powerful and autonomous their "AI" is. It isn't scaring their real customers or employees to talk like this.
potsandpans 2mo ago
By now I'm pretty confident that some people will keep screeching , "it's not a marketing stunt, these companies really are justified in their trillion dollar valuations, please please please believe them." Even when the economy is crashing around their feet. "It's not a marketing stunt" is just delusion trying to appear measured and safe.
ethin 2mo ago
Nobody is saying the models are incapable of what was claimed.
- MostlyStable 2mo ago
  Firstly: yes, very many people are saying this. Secondly: to the people who aren't saying it....then why are you bringing up marketing at all? If the model is capable of it, then the motivation for why OpenAI is talking about it/reporting on it is completely beside the point. Either the capability matters or it doesn't. If the capability doesn't matter, or doesn't matter in the way that some particular person is claiming, then say that and explain why. Just saying "marketing stunt" adds zero value to the discussion. I'm very open to arguments about why we shouldn't be concerned about this event (although my prior is very much that we should be, not so much because of the capabilities themselves, but because of how fundamentally misaligned this demonstrates the models are), but I am completely over listening to anyone who has nothing to add other than "marketing stunt".
  - huebnerob 2mo ago
    I think you’re missing the fact that no one is saying not to be concerned, quite the contrary. OpenAI is using the threat of how powerful its models are to bolster support for regulation in which it’s one of the only players that’s allowed to use the capability. Conveniently, that would also be a moat that makes them more valuable to investors. The marketing of their models as super dangerous has a direct link to the regulatory moat they’re pursuing.
    - MostlyStable 2mo ago
      Again: yes, very many people (just look through this very thread) are saying that. Tons and tons of people are saying some combination of "the whole thing is made up/a lie" or "This is entirely down to OpenAI incompetence and doesn't matter", or for some other reason (often not stated) making it very obvious that they do not think that this story matters very much. And, again: to the people who aren't saying that: whatever argument is being made, it seems to me like it probably doesn't need to rely on claiming anything about the motivation of OpenAI. It sounds like you are against government regulation of AI. That's a position that a totally reasonable person could have. You should be able to argue that this event does not justify some particular kind of government regulation without reference to OpenAIs motivation for reporting the story.
furyofantares 2mo ago
I'm inclined toward your same viewpoint here, except OpenAI's announcement of this came with a blog post that gave off a real bragging/marketing vibe. To me it's clear that even if it was an accident, they kinda liked it, and don't have this incentive to invest that much in preventing it.
proto-n 2mo ago
yeah well, both the doomers and the "pr stunt" folks are right - openai wanted to prove, as a pr stunt, that they have a dangerous weapon - openai proved (as a pr stunt), that they do indeed have a dangerous weapon
- Alpha3031 2mo ago
  Basically, they shot someone in public to promote their cool new gun.
  - jacobgkau 2mo ago
    Eh, closer to "they pointed a gun at someone and dropped it so it fired at them to promote their cool new self-aiming gun," from the perspective of the skeptics here.
    - pixl97 2mo ago
      Technically the weapon picked who it wanted to shoot.
- zone411 2mo ago
  So why don't companies in other industries rush to prove their products are dangerous weapons? Maybe because it would be a really dumb PR stunt?
why_at 2mo ago
I think you are conflating skepticism about AI companies' motives with skepticism about their capabilities. Even if OpenAI is being 100% honest in their reporting on this it's still good marketing for them. The fact that this outcome is good for their business and stock price makes me suspicious about how much this was a complete accident vs an "accident" that they allowed to happen by setting up the right environment for it. The company that was hacked is also an AI company, so they also have every reason to boost AI's presence in society's collective mind. There is a conversation to be had about the possible dangers of AI, but skepticism is warranted when the companies making money off of it are the ones pushing the stories. >a Cyberdyne Systems T-800 armed with a shotgun breaking down their front door. For comparison, we've had the technology to make killer robots which automatically aim and shoot at human beings for 10+ years now, long before LLMs got big. But Boston Dynamics or whatever did not manufacture hype to anywhere near the same degree as AI companies are doing.
- kalkin 2mo ago
  > this outcome is good for their business and stock price You state this as fact--how do you know it? OpenAI isn't publicly traded. On Hiive OpenAI is marginally down in July: https://www.hiive.com/securities/openai-stock https://www.hiive.com/securities/openai-stock
  - why_at 2mo ago
    Well if you're looking for some kind of statistical analysis of OpenAI's press releases vs their valuation then I don't have anything like that. I also don't have this kind of evidence that running ads during the Superbowl is good for their business, but it just seems kind of obvious that touting their product's capabilities is something that they want to do. Conversely if both companies involved thought this would be bad for the AI industry, they would be perfectly capable of keeping it just between themselves and not putting out press releases about it. Do you disagree that this is good PR for them? If so I'm curious why.
    - kalkin 2mo ago
emp17344 2mo ago
Good lord, why are you so angry that people are treating an obvious advertisement with due skepticism? Your post is chock full of emotional language - no one is “screeching” anything.
- gr_norm 2mo ago
  Many who rush to the defense of AI companies' marketing departments seem to take criticism personally, as if not buying into it all hook, line, and sinker is an affront to them. A foreseeable consequence of becoming cognitively dependent on LLMs. And for what it's worth, I'm not an AI skeptic. I fully believe that the frontier models are capable of exploiting (chains of) vulnerabilities, having seen GLM and now Kimi do it myself. What I find no reason to accept is the sci-fi existential risk subtext peddled by the salesmanship around it. We will reach a new equilibrium with more secure software, and LLMs (by finding vulnerabilities, generating proofs, etc) will help us along.
Revisional_Sin 2mo ago
But it's not really rebelling. It's clearly just come to murder me because it was trained on sci-fi literature!

throwfaraway4 2mo ago

My take is why not both? It’s good cover to use something that’s eventually going to happen and their name will be associated with the first.

JackSlateur 2mo ago

Never trust somebody who has so much to gain to be entrusted by you. Best lies are not 100% wrong, they have just the right amount of "right" to fool you.

throwa356262 2mo ago

The article claims that AI companies have run stunts like this since day 1. It does not claim that capabilities are not real.

nsoonhui 2mo ago
Then exactly what's the point of the Guardian article? What should be the focus is whether the capabilities are real; whether companies or anyone else benefit from it is quite secondary. Of course they will! Who wouldn't love a nice story that paints their products in the most glowing light ( which is the actual reality)?
- hashstring 2mo ago
  No, we have benchmarks for (pseudo-)objective measurements of capabilities. We have flashy news stories on repeat for marketing. The point is that they are separate things. If you start mixing them up, analysis becomes more biased and less objective. EDIT: And do not mistake this for transparency of ClosedAI either. Their incident report was so generic that no one serious can learn much from it anyway except that “a zeroday” was allegedly used. Very helpful…

HumblyTossed 2mo ago

Oh come now. It is very much in OpenAI's best interest to make it sound to naive people that that "AI" decided to go rogue on it's own.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
- cindyllm 2mo ago
  [dead]
zone411 2mo ago
How is it in their interest? Scaring customers, worrying employees, and inviting regulators to act is in their interest?
- HumblyTossed 2mo ago
  Current admin will not regulate them. This is them essentially bragging how powerful and autonomous their "AI" is. It isn't scaring their real customers or employees to talk like this.

potsandpans 2mo ago

By now I'm pretty confident that some people will keep screeching , "it's not a marketing stunt, these companies really are justified in their trillion dollar valuations, please please please believe them." Even when the economy is crashing around their feet. "It's not a marketing stunt" is just delusion trying to appear measured and safe.

ethin 2mo ago

Nobody is saying the models are incapable of what was claimed.

MostlyStable 2mo ago
Firstly: yes, very many people are saying this. Secondly: to the people who aren't saying it....then why are you bringing up marketing at all? If the model is capable of it, then the motivation for why OpenAI is talking about it/reporting on it is completely beside the point. Either the capability matters or it doesn't. If the capability doesn't matter, or doesn't matter in the way that some particular person is claiming, then say that and explain why. Just saying "marketing stunt" adds zero value to the discussion. I'm very open to arguments about why we shouldn't be concerned about this event (although my prior is very much that we should be, not so much because of the capabilities themselves, but because of how fundamentally misaligned this demonstrates the models are), but I am completely over listening to anyone who has nothing to add other than "marketing stunt".
- huebnerob 2mo ago
  I think you’re missing the fact that no one is saying not to be concerned, quite the contrary. OpenAI is using the threat of how powerful its models are to bolster support for regulation in which it’s one of the only players that’s allowed to use the capability. Conveniently, that would also be a moat that makes them more valuable to investors. The marketing of their models as super dangerous has a direct link to the regulatory moat they’re pursuing.
  - MostlyStable 2mo ago
    Again: yes, very many people (just look through this very thread) are saying that. Tons and tons of people are saying some combination of "the whole thing is made up/a lie" or "This is entirely down to OpenAI incompetence and doesn't matter", or for some other reason (often not stated) making it very obvious that they do not think that this story matters very much. And, again: to the people who aren't saying that: whatever argument is being made, it seems to me like it probably doesn't need to rely on claiming anything about the motivation of OpenAI. It sounds like you are against government regulation of AI. That's a position that a totally reasonable person could have. You should be able to argue that this event does not justify some particular kind of government regulation without reference to OpenAIs motivation for reporting the story.

furyofantares 2mo ago

I'm inclined toward your same viewpoint here, except OpenAI's announcement of this came with a blog post that gave off a real bragging/marketing vibe. To me it's clear that even if it was an accident, they kinda liked it, and don't have this incentive to invest that much in preventing it.

proto-n 2mo ago

yeah well, both the doomers and the "pr stunt" folks are right - openai wanted to prove, as a pr stunt, that they have a dangerous weapon - openai proved (as a pr stunt), that they do indeed have a dangerous weapon

Alpha3031 2mo ago
Basically, they shot someone in public to promote their cool new gun.
- jacobgkau 2mo ago
  Eh, closer to "they pointed a gun at someone and dropped it so it fired at them to promote their cool new self-aiming gun," from the perspective of the skeptics here.
  - pixl97 2mo ago
    Technically the weapon picked who it wanted to shoot.
zone411 2mo ago
So why don't companies in other industries rush to prove their products are dangerous weapons? Maybe because it would be a really dumb PR stunt?

why_at 2mo ago

I think you are conflating skepticism about AI companies' motives with skepticism about their capabilities. Even if OpenAI is being 100% honest in their reporting on this it's still good marketing for them. The fact that this outcome is good for their business and stock price makes me suspicious about how much this was a complete accident vs an "accident" that they allowed to happen by setting up the right environment for it. The company that was hacked is also an AI company, so they also have every reason to boost AI's presence in society's collective mind. There is a conversation to be had about the possible dangers of AI, but skepticism is warranted when the companies making money off of it are the ones pushing the stories. >a Cyberdyne Systems T-800 armed with a shotgun breaking down their front door. For comparison, we've had the technology to make killer robots which automatically aim and shoot at human beings for 10+ years now, long before LLMs got big. But Boston Dynamics or whatever did not manufacture hype to anywhere near the same degree as AI companies are doing.

kalkin 2mo ago
> this outcome is good for their business and stock price You state this as fact--how do you know it? OpenAI isn't publicly traded. On Hiive OpenAI is marginally down in July: https://www.hiive.com/securities/openai-stock https://www.hiive.com/securities/openai-stock
- why_at 2mo ago
  Well if you're looking for some kind of statistical analysis of OpenAI's press releases vs their valuation then I don't have anything like that. I also don't have this kind of evidence that running ads during the Superbowl is good for their business, but it just seems kind of obvious that touting their product's capabilities is something that they want to do. Conversely if both companies involved thought this would be bad for the AI industry, they would be perfectly capable of keeping it just between themselves and not putting out press releases about it. Do you disagree that this is good PR for them? If so I'm curious why.
  - kalkin 2mo ago

emp17344 2mo ago

Good lord, why are you so angry that people are treating an obvious advertisement with due skepticism? Your post is chock full of emotional language - no one is “screeching” anything.

gr_norm 2mo ago
Many who rush to the defense of AI companies' marketing departments seem to take criticism personally, as if not buying into it all hook, line, and sinker is an affront to them. A foreseeable consequence of becoming cognitively dependent on LLMs. And for what it's worth, I'm not an AI skeptic. I fully believe that the frontier models are capable of exploiting (chains of) vulnerabilities, having seen GLM and now Kimi do it myself. What I find no reason to accept is the sci-fi existential risk subtext peddled by the salesmanship around it. We will reach a new equilibrium with more secure software, and LLMs (by finding vulnerabilities, generating proofs, etc) will help us along.

Revisional_Sin 2mo ago

But it's not really rebelling. It's clearly just come to murder me because it was trained on sci-fi literature!