YHK - yet another hacker news clone

DuPont advertises

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.

> 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.

> 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?

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...

> 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

> 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?

> 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.

Wait what, Hacker News influencers? :D

Sounds like a model devised by politicians as well not to mention any examples.

>>brainwash the population via YouTube,

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.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdmYMHrWKg

>could even be part of the same organisation's campaign

Eh we know its part of the same campaigns. "Please provide us with regulatory capture because our tech is an existential threat" has been going on for a while now.

the boomer news have been turning the ai doom scenario to 11 for that pre ipo ramp up

Turns out, people are a lot better at detecting slop than expected. An uncanny slop valley.

This is the mistake they made. Anthropic and OpenAI are great technically. I love them. But they are absolute crap at making most people feeling like its relevant to them or that AI companies care about them. So its' really easy to be dismissive of the tech and oppose things like data centers. I think the influencer route is a quick fix. They need to appeal to everyday problems but, understandably, the founders like Dario and Altman think very high level. They think they are doing what's best in a way, but not in a way that's relateable to most people. LLMs need to be more human friendly; example, solve little problems like actually writing without sounding like AI

They're buying the credibility of the influencers.

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.

They don't even have a video model

World's best AI models doesn't offset public resentment caused by putting data centers in residential areas, openly buying off the White House and Congress with PAC "donations" and constantly threatening to eliminate everyone's job.

Yeah, that post disappeared rather quickly. I was surprised by it.

I feel like the "We hacked hugging face" thing and this influencer thing are targeting different things but have the same goal of hyping up the company for the IPO.

- The HF incident was to get the attention of investors and convey the message: "we have this incredibly powerful technology, imagine where we will be in 5 years"

- With this influencer campaign it's just a drive to get more people to use ChatGPT / sign up to ChatGPT so when IPO time comes, they can show strong user growth.

Over the past few months I've seen various reports that OpenAI's financial position isn't great and if those reports have any merit, then likely the higher ups at OpenAI are panicking that they might become a WeWork 2.0. Everything they are doing now is an attempt to justify their $1T valuation to investors during the IPO.

I think it’s more that YC is so heavily invested in AI-related stuff it cannot then have a message board affiliated with it that has anti-AI content on it. Maybe it has always been like this for anything YC had its fingers in and it was just less obvious?

She's in prison because she defrauded enterprise customers. If she went B2C, she'd probably be head of the FTC by now.

Its not pretty bad for people.