‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

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

221 points · 209 comments · cdrnsf

  1. bko · · 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. vrganj · · 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 · · 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.

        1. vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
          That is actually a commonality.

          <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC12255134&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC12255134&#x2F;

          Either way though, we&#x27;ve disproven the neat rhetorical trick of conflating usage numbers and popular perception.

          1. bko · · 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?”

            1. vrganj · · 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?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.