> 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.

▲

Terr_ an hour ago | parent [-]

> 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.

	▲	jackb4040 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.