But the things they say they believe are insane and totally unmoored from physical, societal, and economic reality. If they actually believe those things they're untrustworthy because they're delusional. If they don't, they're untrustworthy because they're fraudulent. Either way it's not good..

▲

reducesuffering an hour ago | parent [-]

They're not. They're in the eye of the storm and see what's going on the clearest. They were ahead of the curve to be where they're at now, and they're still ahead of the curve for where we're going. All the other heads of labs like Sam Altman and Demis have been saying the same thing since 2015-2016 way before any of this "marketing" would ever have been at play.

▲

jcgrillo an hour ago | parent [-]

There's a simpler explanation that fits the data better: they're lying.

Generally, in the past when tech companies have made outlandish claims that were not backed by evidence, they're later found out to have lied. This is an ancient pattern going back to the dotcom era and before, but for recent examples you need only look back a few years to the web3 era. If they're not lying, they can show it by producing the results they claim. Until then, they're probably just lying.

	▲	estearum an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What data does "they're lying" fit better than "they're earnest?" > If they're not lying, they can show it by producing the results they claim. Until then, they're probably just lying Brilliant framework: Anyone making claims about the future is not just speculating, not just wrong, but they are lying.