[huebnerob]

I think you’re missing the fact that no one is saying not to be concerned, quite the contrary. OpenAI is using the threat of how powerful its models are to bolster support for regulation in which it’s one of the only players that’s allowed to use the capability. Conveniently, that would also be a moat that makes them more valuable to investors.

The marketing of their models as super dangerous has a direct link to the regulatory moat they’re pursuing.

[MostlyStable]

Again: yes, very many people (just look through this very thread) are saying that. Tons and tons of people are saying some combination of "the whole thing is made up/a lie" or "This is entirely down to OpenAI incompetence and doesn't matter", or for some other reason (often not stated) making it very obvious that they do not think that this story matters very much.

And, again: to the people who aren't saying that: whatever argument is being made, it seems to me like it probably doesn't need to rely on claiming anything about the motivation of OpenAI. It sounds like you are against government regulation of AI. That's a position that a totally reasonable person could have. You should be able to argue that this event does not justify some particular kind of government regulation without reference to OpenAIs motivation for reporting the story.

[fsckboy]

you are dodging the "regulatory competitive moat" angle and constantly reinforcing the marketing angle. they are different.

[IBCNU]

The vibe in this thread is literally everyone going "script kiddie, it's all smoke and mirrors, marketing stunt" and acting like well that settles it.

Meanwhile literally no one has actually shown the script kiddie thing - nikcub's apparently looked.

Sure, moat, sure, OpenAI milks this, both can be true, but literally has zero to do with misalignment.

Just frustrating that folks are still having this collective delusion about the capabilities of the model.

respectfully.