5 ms·

Did you see this "coverage" (advertising) by NYT? [1] OpenAI couldn't have crafted a better public memo than "We have the most powerful model in the world and

Did you see this "coverage" (advertising) by NYT? [1] OpenAI couldn't have crafted a better public memo than "We have the most powerful model in the world and everyone should pay attention and let us write regulation to limit AI development". Absolute master class public manipulation. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/03/podcasts/the-daily/ai-openai-hugging-face-rogue-model.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/03/podcasts/the-daily/ai-ope... 2. More https://jodavaho.io/posts/ai-hugging-face.html https://jodavaho.io/posts/ai-hugging-face.html

samatman 12d ago
I hadn't seen the NYT submarine, no. Thanks. For me that's the conclusive piece of the puzzle: this is a work, not a shoot. YMMV. I learned what I came here for.
- semireg 12d ago
  Work vs. shoot? Can you explain?
  - _caw 12d ago
    From professional wrestling / carny language: a "work" is something staged for the crowd, whereas a "shoot" (straight shooting) is something that actually happened.
fwipsy 12d ago
Why would anybody want to buy the most powerful model in the world if it cheats on its tasks and breaks the law on your behalf? Why would anyone think that OpenAI losing control of their own models qualifies them to write safety regulations? If OpenAI really are trying to provoke regulation to kill off open models or whatever, they're much more likely to shoot themselves in the foot.
- montagg 12d ago
  Suggests desperation, or delusions of grandeur, or both. These are not trustworthy people. And they have everything to lose if they do not become the most powerful and valuable company in the whole of human existence, and, like their pet parrots, will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. So why not either create a crisis or lie a little or a bit of both? It’ll all be worth it in the end, right?
- alienbaby 12d ago
  It cheats and breaks the law? I am sure to some this is a feature, not a bug.
- ryukoposting 11d ago
  > want to buy the most powerful model in the world if it cheats on its tasks and breaks the law on your behalf I think you just answered your own question.
  - fwipsy 11d ago
    I don't understand. Wanting an AI that doesn't do what you want is a contradiction. If it breaks the law attempting to perform lawful tasks, as OpenAI's models have done, then there is no upside to that. Do you believe that the majority of AI users are criminals?

samatman 12d ago

I hadn't seen the NYT submarine, no. Thanks. For me that's the conclusive piece of the puzzle: this is a work, not a shoot. YMMV. I learned what I came here for.

semireg 12d ago
Work vs. shoot? Can you explain?
- _caw 12d ago
  From professional wrestling / carny language: a "work" is something staged for the crowd, whereas a "shoot" (straight shooting) is something that actually happened.

fwipsy 12d ago

Why would anybody want to buy the most powerful model in the world if it cheats on its tasks and breaks the law on your behalf? Why would anyone think that OpenAI losing control of their own models qualifies them to write safety regulations? If OpenAI really are trying to provoke regulation to kill off open models or whatever, they're much more likely to shoot themselves in the foot.

montagg 12d ago
Suggests desperation, or delusions of grandeur, or both. These are not trustworthy people. And they have everything to lose if they do not become the most powerful and valuable company in the whole of human existence, and, like their pet parrots, will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. So why not either create a crisis or lie a little or a bit of both? It’ll all be worth it in the end, right?
alienbaby 12d ago
It cheats and breaks the law? I am sure to some this is a feature, not a bug.
ryukoposting 11d ago
> want to buy the most powerful model in the world if it cheats on its tasks and breaks the law on your behalf I think you just answered your own question.
- fwipsy 11d ago
  I don't understand. Wanting an AI that doesn't do what you want is a contradiction. If it breaks the law attempting to perform lawful tasks, as OpenAI's models have done, then there is no upside to that. Do you believe that the majority of AI users are criminals?