Thread

OpenAI is enlisting an influencer army to make it look 'good for the world'

221 points · 209 comments · cdrnsf

bko · 1790168561 · focus · HN ↗
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?
1. 123aGaf · 1790168837 · focus · HN ↗
  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.
2. voidhorse · 1790169533 · focus · HN ↗
  > 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.
3. gmd63 · 1790169884 · focus · HN ↗
  > 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.
  1. bko · 1790172009 · focus · HN ↗
    "competitive landscape"
    It's clear that people are using it for personal reasons
    > The Brookings Institution / AmeriSpeak Survey: A nationwide survey found that 57% of Americans use generative AI for personal tasks (such as web browsing, daily use, or information searches), while only 21% report using it in a professional or work role.
    Is there "competitive" reasons to have an AI girlfriend? There is an implied preference that you like the technology by using it by choice and you don't think it will end civilization. You may tell pollsters you're worried but it's the same people telling pollsters sea levels are rising while investing in beach front real estate. Meaningless.
    danny_codes · 1790175155 · focus · HN ↗
    Or AI is addictive and people are lonely after decades of social erosion in the US.
4. vrganj · 1790169892 · focus · HN ↗
  > 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?
  1. bko · 1790172210 · focus · HN ↗
    Here's the difference if it's not obvious:
    Opium is a dangerous drug that harms its user. AI is a useful tool that helps people be more productive or explore their interests.
    vrganj · 1790172621 · focus · HN ↗
    That is actually a commonality.
    <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12255134/" rel="nofollow">https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12255134/
    Either way though, we've disproven the neat rhetorical trick of conflating usage numbers and popular perception.
    bko · 1790173639 · focus · HN ↗
    Step one: find two things that differ in nearly every relevant respect.
    Step two: identify the broad category they share.
    Step three: ask, “If you accept one, why don’t you accept the other?”
    vrganj · 1790174264 · focus · HN ↗
    Thank you for sharing your modus operandi with us.
    Now, what does that have to do with pointing out your ad populum fallacy though?
5. mhitza · 1790169963 · focus · HN ↗
  > 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.
  <a href="https://www.gate.com/news/detail/david-sacks-warns-ai-doom-narratives-backed-by-1b-funding-as-anthropic-ipo-24072089" rel="nofollow">https://www.gate.com/news/detail/david-sacks-warns-ai-doom-n...
6. ChickeNES · 1790171156 · focus · HN ↗
  > 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
  1. bko · 1790172119 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree, but there's also a whole domestic "AI doom industry". The pipeline from AI researcher to guest on popular podcasts promoting your stop-AI-from-killing-us startup/"non-profit" is less than a year.
  2. pjc50 · 1790174788 · focus · HN ↗
    It's the AI companies themselves! <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/27/wake-up-to-the-risks-of-ai-they-are-almost-here-anthropic-boss-warns" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/27/wake-up-t...
7. bix6 · 1790171824 · focus · HN ↗
  > 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?
8. ks2048 · 1790172594 · focus · HN ↗
  > 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.
9. skybrian · 1790172754 · focus · HN ↗
  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.
  1. Melatonic · 1790183109 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't want AI in that PDF you're trying to sign?! I cannot imagine
10. officeplant · 1790172835 · focus · HN ↗
  Thank you for your service, your influencer token stipend has been applied to your account.
11. danny_codes · 1790175083 · focus · HN ↗
  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
12. cyclopeanutopia · 1790175570 · focus · HN ↗
  Wow, what a colossal disconnect from reality.
13. thereader12 · 1790178842 · focus · HN ↗
  >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.
  I can say everyone I know in software is both forced to use AI and hates it, even if they would have used ai otherwise. With one exception of someone who does less software than infrastructure and he complains about his coworkers bad (but voluntary) ai code. I wonder what your industry is?
14. buellerbueller · 1790179702 · focus · HN ↗
  I have to use it at work; it is helpful; i don't like it.
  It's a red queens race: not only for the building of "true" AGI, but also for us plebes. If we don't use it, we will be surpassed by plebes who do. None of us agreed to any level of this arrangement, but all will be profoundly impacted.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.