Posted by cdrnsf 1 day ago
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.
Come on bro, your hatred of the guy is making you say some dumb shit. You can just say you dislike him and leave it at that, I think most people can at least understand why others would dislike him, but spouting nonsense just makes you (and not him) look bad.
Elons rise to idiocy was Twitter for sure. There are plenty of other multi-billionaires that you don't even know exist.
> You can just say you dislike him and leave it at that
No, I cannot. Maybe you don't live in the US where he's actively taking in a role in fucking the government up, but I do. This is not non-sense to make him look bad, this is the words right out of his own mouth.
If you like those words it says way more about you then me.
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.
Huh?
> "It would not surprise me in the least if people were paid to boost on HN.
"It would not surprise me if I held an apple in the air and let go of it, that it would hit the ground".
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.
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.
Everything has inauthentic messaging right now.
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.
But then, even if it's them in their own skin, you think it's the algorithm showing that for you, when it's showing stuff for them to you.
It's weasels all the way down.
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.
2. LLMs have raised the floor of digital content creation ("democratized content creation"). Before lots of things would have not been created due to lack of knowledge, interest, motivation. Now the baseline for making something is a 10 word prompt. Personally I think it's a huge loss. Yes, we will get 5% "diamonds in the rough" who would have never approached a field due to gatekeeping, discrimination, whatever. Will that outweigh the other 95% of lazy creators flooding every field with around average content? I'm not convinced. There is a cost to that flood.
I'm not questioning it. I know it does. I just cannot wrap my head around it beyond the initial marketing angle (you cannot be interested in an article unless you know it exists).
Eg I like to watch some pretty mainstream creators like mkbhd. Never was I actually interested in any of the products he pitched. Literally every marketing $ spent on him that ultimately reached my eyeballs was entirely wasted by the sponsors
After all the delivery is different.
With traditional advertising you're being sold a fantasy. The advertisment is usually produced so you're self-inserting yourself into the production. So when you're seeing the fit and good looking cowboy smoking a Marlboro... You subconsciously think: that's who I wanna be, and consequently may be more likely to buy it.
Influencer marketing is however inherently contextualized to the para social relationship between the viewer and the creator. The people that buy the product do so because "their" creator told them about it.
At least that's been the feeling I've got on every sponsorship pitching to date. It's aimed at people that want to get closer to the Creator. At least in their head.
Or they just have trouble differentiating between the trusted endorsement of a real social relationship and the paid endorsement of a para-social relationship, and that confusion affords the latter an exploitable amount of trust. In their head, they're already "close" to the influencer, not trying to get there, basically.
It probably works even better once you atomize individuals, and inhibit/discourage natural social relationships. Those social instincts needs somewhere to go, and it's best for all of society if that's into the advertiser's trap via an influencer.
eh, i'll bet there is a single person that read your comment and had no idea who that creator was, searched for their name, watched their videos, and eventually bought something
second- and third-order derivatives of a social impulse are difficult to track
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.
No, he's not a literalist throwback. But he is planning to glorify and expand his OpenAI reich.
I think there's something like a "reich" here, but don't take the comparison too literally. OpenAI wants to invade society and change it to match their vision, and they're going to do everything in their power (which is quite a lot), to make it go in their direction, and they care little about the harm they will cause. The rest of us are just Czechs to them.
Again this is super hyperbolic.
> going to do everything in their power (which is quite a lot)
No it's not a lot. They are heavily bound by law, they're struggling against local zoning just like everyone else.
Look I get it, Sam Atlman is an incredibly ghoulish person but the hitler comparisons are just fucking dumb and everyone should aspire to better discourse here.
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.
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.
The knowledge I have learned has indeed come from what might arguably be described as, maybe not as painstaking, but certainly something with intention and effort.
To me it sounds like you’re describing learning to write by having ChatGPT write essays for you. You don’t actually know how to identify birds, you know how to ask your phone to do it for you. Though I can understand the illusion this may cause you to feel. I get the same when I watch high level chess players play, and then am reminded what I can actually do my next game.
And, doing projects in domains I'm unfamiliar with (and those I am) is massively sped up by AI.
I learn to do these projects with AI - it's different than learning to do it without AI, and I don't learn some steps I otherwise would, because AI can do those.
But, I start and finish and use and polish so many more projects in so many more domains, with AI, than I could without.
And, starting and finishing projects is the point for me, not learning obscure stuff that doesn't help there, so, I don't feel like I've missed out on much. You might look down on it, but, if I have AI and you don't, I will bet on me to finish a project before you, better than you, in almost any field where we have similar levels of experience.
IDK about frontier-pushing-pursuits, though. I've written algorithms by hand that I doubt AI ever would have, in its current state... but, then, at least a few of those I'd given up on, for lack of time, and when AI came along, I was able to go back and have it finish them. But, for me, the work wasn't the goal, or even my own accomplishment therein - I just wanted the result. If your motivations differ, you might not find AI as fucking awesome as I do.
- Henry Ford
This is roughly my point. The moment the AI was able to do things for me, those things which it could do became trivia. I never had a taste for trivia. I still fill my days with learning and knowledge... the things I must learn and know to do my work and run my business well. I am growing faster with AI than I could without - it's allowed me to expand my purview while narrowing my focus. No less learning, just a different shape of it.
So, to me, the argument that "AI doesn't help you learn" completely misses the point. AI can help you learn, if you use it to and apply yourself, but also, AI can allow you to accomplish without filling your mind with "general knowledge" - not the high value stuff that is your business, but the low level stuff that was incidental.
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
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
I think you're conflating access to information with genuine learning.
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.
The industrial revolution wiped out like 90% of human labor as it was imagined at the time, but it nearly fully replaced it with new forms of employment.
There are a lot of unknowns with what this would look like with AI.
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.
So, yeah, that's a lot.
Also, there are at least a few data centers popping up around me (11 GW Fermi, > 1 GW Crusoe). I live in a desert, and water is scarce, and what's used is mostly non-renewable (pumped from an aquifer), and these data centers evaporate water at an alarming rate.
So... yeah, that's pretty significant... much more so locally than globally, but globally, too.
Global electricity consumption is up about 600% since 1970. So, that 2027 projection of 3% of global in 2027 is equivalent to about 20% of all electricity consumed in 1970. A fair amount, for sure.
IDK if it's worth 3% of global electricity consumption. I know I'd be happy to spend that percentage of my own home's electricity on it, for what it does for me, and I think the world would be better for it. The alternative is accomplishing far less... easily halving my productive output (10x is my honest estimation of productivity boost from AI). I do not believe in the value of my labor, I believe in the value of the product thereof. So, IDK... hopefully it's not a zero sum game, and AI (or motivated people with AI) can help it all pan out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
see: gambling, food delivery, ride sharing, video games, online therapy, etc
"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?
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.
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.
So am I pro- or anti- AI? Both. It depends what it is.
I can say everyone I know in software is both forced to use AI and hates it, even if they would have used ai otherwise. With one exception of someone who does less software than infrastructure and he complains about his coworkers bad (but voluntary) ai code. I wonder what your industry 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...
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.
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?
It's a red queens race: not only for the building of "true" AGI, but also for us plebes. If we don't use it, we will be surpassed by plebes who do. None of us agreed to any level of this arrangement, but all will be profoundly impacted.
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.
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