Thread

1. teagee · 1789610641 · focus · HN ↗

   Is there any precedent from other industries where a company tries to frame their own product’s shortcomings appear to be society’s problem?

   Would nytimes cover a self driving car company disclose concerning ‘behavior’ of their cars the same way?

   For anyone who has had to remind a coding agent to not leave comments over and over again, not following instructions seems more feature than bug

   1. jacquesm · 1789610922 · focus · HN ↗

      Banking. The energy sector. Mining. Chemical industries.

      1. teagee · 1789611111 · focus · HN ↗

         Wouldn’t the equivalent in chemical be like Exxon having a blog post of their most damaging oil spills?

         1. bamboozled · 1789611226 · focus · HN ↗

            Yup, this is and a blog post outlining how dangerous climate change is and how they need to be regulated immediately to stop global extinction.

            1. no-name-here · 1789612979 · focus · HN ↗

               “This is big oil pushing the climate hoax to spur regulation and prevent the impede upstarts from installing an oil rig on their own land!”
            2. runarberg · 1789614065 · focus · HN ↗

               I think there is a major difference in that climate change is real, while AI companies are constantly hampering on about a threat which is basically just science fiction. It would be like if Exxon was constantly warning about oil drilling opening up a portal which would unleash monsters with 10% chance of killing all humans.

               AI companies are still very silent about the actual risks of their products. That this is addictive, that it causes atrophy, that its usage among children is bad for their education, that in worst cases it psychosis, and is often used to harm others and for criminal activities.

               This reminds me of the behavior of cigarette companies. Except instead of only staying silent on the risks of their products (and funding pseudo-scientific studies to muddy the waters) they invent risks which do not exist. And then use these stories as evidence for these made up risks. In the non-AI world this is called consumer hostile behavior, but in AI the fact that their products are faulty, and unsafe, is called misalignment.

               1. strange_quark · 1789614746 · focus · HN ↗

                  Our fracking activity is causing the tap water to catch on fire, causing small earthquakes, and killing all the wildlife, so you (government) better stop us. But we can't stop because if we do, China might open up the hell portal first!

                  1. nativeit · 1789623452 · focus · HN ↗

                     I think I heard that we’ll be fracking with nuclear materials soon so we can harvest the tritium water as a byproduct. Does anyone know if that’s just a wild, stupid theory that will never work, or an actual idea being explored? Sounds horrifying.
                  2. bouncing_bolete · 1789747637 · focus · HN ↗

                     Issue is that other corps play by the same rules. If those corps are willing to stoop to immoral means and not get punished for it (they don't), the upstanding players are going to get outcompeted
         2. nativeit · 1789623307 · focus · HN ↗

            Recycling plastics is a huge lie that’s caused society to perform rituals that absolve them of the horrible impact they’re inflicting on the planet.

            I don’t think this kind of gaslighting is unique or new, but the AI company’s specific melange of fear-mongering, disingenuous helplessness, ethics-washing, with a handy wildcard of regulatory capture is perhaps uniquely optimized and (so far) effective.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.