| ▲ | jstummbillig 2 hours ago | |
> "Costly" how, and for whom? For multiple parties, probably mostly OpenAI (which is, of course, as it should be). I would assume the people involved in investigating, cleaning up and coordinating the outfall do not do it for free or cheaply, and neither is the infrastructure required to run this operation. If it was not mostly OpenAI, or if OpenAI failed to cooperate, we would probably see a lot more lawsuits already. > "Free marketing" seems like a more relevant characterization. Yes, nothing screams free marketing quite like an AI company losing control of their AI. The public has been ecstatic in response. | ||
| ▲ | simoncion an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
> The public has been ecstatic in response. Given that a very clued-in and intelligent fellow I know continues to use [0] OpenAI's LLM-based tools despite the bad press that we're talking about here and the bad press that we're not talking about there, I'd say that the public that matters doesn't view it negatively. [0] I saw the guy paste a link the to results from one in a group chat we're in just a little while ago, in fact. When I say "continues to use", I mean it. | ||
| ▲ | habinero an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> Yes, nothing screams free marketing quite like rogue AI scheming against their builders Yeah, it's not like the CEOs of both companies have been saying their product might put everyone out of a job or destroy humanity entirely. Or saying some models were too scary to release publicly and then doing just that. Oh, wait. | ||