I love the hyperbolic language.

"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 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

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?

Thank you for your service, your influencer token stipend has been applied to your account.

Or, and here’s a crazy idea, people don’t like AI.

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

> So presumably people have a general favorable impression of the technology as they're engaging with the product and many are paying for it.

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.

> put 'good for the world' in quotes because obviously it's not

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.

It’s being jammed into products where it’s not wanted. I use AI every day with good results, but I do not want it in my browser, my OS, my text editor, or AI summaries in my search engine. I want it in a separate web app where I can use it or not.

So am I pro- or anti- AI? Both. It depends what it is.

Wow, what a colossal disconnect from reality.

> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?

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...

> 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.

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?

> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?

Give you a hint: starts with C, ends with a P, with a C in the middle

Lol, yes, slop is growing exponentially.

> 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.

> The big question is who is funding the influencer army to gaslight people into thinking AI/data centers will somehow end the world?

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.