←back to thread

How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

(www.nytimes.com)
387 points reaperducer | 9 comments | 31 Oct 25 13:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.819s | source | bottom
Show context
rw3 ◴[31 Oct 25 13:53 UTC] No.45771994[source]▶
Hank green did a vlog on this a few weeks ago and it’s a great explainer.
replies(2): >>45772116 #>>45777089 #
gtirloni ◴[31 Oct 25 14:05 UTC] No.45772116[source]▶
This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz0oQ0v0W10

This comment is pretty depressing but it seems to be the path we're headed to:

> It's bad enough that people think fake videos are real, but they also now think real videos are fake. My channel is all wildlife that I filmed myself in my own yard, and I've had people leaving comments that it's AI, because the lighting is too pretty or the bird is too cute. The real world is pretty and cute all the time, guys! That's why I'm filming it!

Combine this with selecting only what you want to believe in and you can say that video/image that goes against your "facts" is "fake AI". We already have some people in pretty powerful positions doing this to manipulate their bases.

replies(4): >>45772451 #>>45772813 #>>45773311 #>>45773383 #
1. throwaway106382 ◴[31 Oct 25 14:39 UTC] No.45772451[source]▶
We are heading to an apocalyptic level of psychosis where human beings won't even believe the things they see with their own eyes are real anymore because of being flooded with AI slop 24/7/365.
replies(1): >>45772838 #
2. jimbokun ◴[31 Oct 25 15:07 UTC] No.45772838[source]▶
We desperately need a technological solution to be able to somehow "sign" images and videos as being real and not generated or manipulated by AI.

I have no idea how such a thing would work.

replies(4): >>45773248 #>>45778762 #>>45783519 #>>45784137 #
3. SoftTalker ◴[31 Oct 25 15:35 UTC] No.45773248[source]▶
It won't work, because most people do not understand what a digital signature is and they will just say that has been faked as well.
replies(1): >>45775303 #
4. jimbokun ◴[31 Oct 25 18:45 UTC] No.45775303{3}[source]▶
Journalists will know how to check it in high profile cases.

And annoyed and suspicious techies can use it to check other people's content and report them as fake.

Yeah, there are a lot of dumb people who want to be deceived. But would be good for the rest of us to have some tools.

replies(1): >>45776809 #
5. throwaway106382 ◴[31 Oct 25 21:18 UTC] No.45776809{4}[source]▶
This will just create a black market for AI generated video content that doesn't have a signature. Which I'm sure that China, Russia, hell even the US governments would not have a problem with because that would be extremely useful for them.
replies(1): >>45779283 #
6. ANighRaisin ◴[01 Nov 25 02:23 UTC] No.45778762[source]▶
Such a thing exists currently, at least for images created by Google and other major AI companies.
7. jimbokun ◴[01 Nov 25 04:36 UTC] No.45779283{5}[source]▶
So everything without a signature should just be assumed to be AI.
8. jfil ◴[01 Nov 25 17:31 UTC] No.45783519[source]▶
We desperately need a high-tech solution to disengage from the torrent of AI slop. I have found a form of photosynthesizing plant that grows in the soil of many places where humans live. Apparently, touching this with the palm of your hand creates a kind of protective endorphin effect that coalesces conflicting versions of reality into the one you're actually experiencing. It'll take a lot of money to advertise this to the general population, but I'm fundraising as hard as I can: this approach will be called "Touch Grass" and I hope to see you all when we do it together.
9. zzrrt ◴[01 Nov 25 18:38 UTC] No.45784137[source]▶
Enter “analog deep-fakers” who create misleading images using the lost arts of our ancestors. I guess it would at least be more expensive than AI, so might not be as prevalent and damaging.