I bet they are running Google and Meta ads to generate traffic to these malicious domains.

You should read the article and see!

Has already started with companies offering buyouts.

Gotta give it to OAI for waiting. They smelled it.

Well they’re struggling to raise cash via new rounds, having slashed both the raise amount and valuation themselves. So in that situation they may go bust before having a chance to go public.

OAI is in the middle of another funding round at $1.25T. If Anthropic with allegedly better financials can't get above $1.1T then why would anyone buy OAI at $1.25T

Or then any numbers they would have publicly presented with even previous scrutiny would have been so bad no one would have bought them at price they want.

Is waiting better? Surely it would be better to be early, before faith is lost? I think being late to a party as it’s deflating is the worst case

My hunch is that it’s better to be late in this scenario because now your moves are under public scrutiny or at least neck-deep. People can pull out, it could slow them down and at the end look worse.

As a privately held company, it functions under different dynamics that in the environment we’re seeing feels better to stay private for longer.

The irony behind this article serving AI slop ads that are likely malicious.

I’m a user of both and don’t really see the need to go anywhere else. It all just sounds like mumbo jumbo.

As a solopreneur of a boring SMB.

I still do coding and build my own tools but I don’t see the need for agent swarms or Muse or Grok Bot or any of that.

The reason why I stay away is because I like to do QA on the slop these things generate. Having them run amok just makes me nervous.

and you can get a modest swarm with subagents and ultracode.

People definitely seem to notice.

I see restaurants post AI flyers and ads to random local Facebook groups and most of the replies are about them being AI slop. I think it’s an uncanny valley problem: People don’t mind if you post a real photo of your food or a cartoon drawing of a pizza or a pig on a spit, but when it’s a weird fake photo with texture issues, it looks gross, especially when it’s food.

I think a lot of people who open restaurants probably aren’t extremely online, partly because it would be physically impossible with the amount of work they have to do, but they definitely pay attention -sometimes too much attention — to public online feedback.

The thing with those "AI Slop" comments are generally from people whom are opinionated about the image. However it's abundantly clear that the target demographic which is the customers generally don't mind. If you think about it, We have been conditioned by the "for illustrative purposes only" label on most food images that at this point most people just want a reference so they can decide what to eat. I'd take an AI image over just words any day.

I get why restaurants use the cartoon-looking slop. If you don't particularly care that it signals that you put no effort into your menu or ad or that your restaurant's menu has the same shitty aesthetic as all other slop, fine. It's a cartoon and I could understand someone thinking it looks ok.

I absolutely do not get the uncanny-valley images. Those all look gross. Besides not actually being representative of the dish, the images have all sorts of weird texture issues, look too glossy, and are just unappetizing. I cannot understand why a restaurant owner would want to put up an ad that has food that looks straight up gross.

Professional food photography is expensive. This is a case of the free mediocre offer crowding out the much better but expensive option. Same way that free mail with ads crowded out email without ads.

> people don’t even seem to notice.

I've been seeing "AI slop" stickers posted on things

> I see just everywhere including food menus

The places I have seen it in use are the places that would have a handwritten scribble that was misspelt and would be something mocked by people because it was written by ESOL (or vice versa, English speakers trying, but failing, to write in a different language)

Honestly, I think the AI slop is a step up - I can read the signs clearly, and they are only mildly offensive

Edit: I guess I take the view that - like a pirated movie filmed in a cinema - the only people that use/watch it are people that were never going to pay for the real thing anyway

Everyone’s levered to the tits in tech debt.

Now the interest rate is going up.

I don’t think “human beings should burn themselves to learn.” Yes, we learn from mistakes and failures, and I think we have already seen how technology developments have their risks pegged to them.

I also think that in the grand scheme of things, we have “burned our hands” plenty of times and we still don’t seem to care because “the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Also, I like David Friedberg’s argument where he says that you can do as much as you can to slow it down, but it’s already too late because of the amount of open source models available. I think a fair comparison could be the black market. You can do as much as you want against it: regulate it, slow it down, etc… it will be there and there will be demand for it.

I admire Jeffrey, but saying that we’d be better off without having invented the technology is an easy and clickbait thing to say. Just like saying we’d be better off without drugs, factory farming, cars, etc… you can say this about many many things.

I think that what’s important is seeing the writing on the wall, acknowledge that both really good things can happen as much as really bad things and ensure humanity as a whole does not suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that’s never the case and us mere mortals are the ones that will suffer the consequences.

> I also think that in the grand scheme of things, we have “burned our hands” plenty of times and we still don’t seem to care because “the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Not really. Most of the wealthy, who make the decisions, have not been burned. With climate change, the rich insulate themselves by moving or with AC. I also never suggested we burn ourselves. I suggest that it would be better if we were burned, rather than continue down the current path of reckless innovation.

>I also think that in the grand scheme of things, we have “burned our hands” plenty of times and we still don’t seem to care because “the benefits outweigh the risks.”

I think in general it’s because we’re basically born the most inept animal on the planet. Everything has to be taught/learnt again, so we do eventually learn from the burnt hand but we all have to burn our hands first. And there’s always going to be a fresh set of hands next year that haven’t been burnt.

It’s weird…

It just feels like not even getting too close to the sun helps.

I think of COVID and gain of function research. We got pretty close to the sun there but I’m sure we’re just going to continue fucking around and finding out.

Because at the end, there’s going to be profit to be made out of it.

Wonder how it could turn out in states like FL where consent is needed for recording conversations.

The untested loophole is you can't access the audio or direct transcript, just a "summary" of everything everyone around you says.

So, a written recording then? ;)

It can be turned off. You get a pop-up as soon as you open the site.

I’m on the other side of this and I think this is a great social feature for websites.

One thing the web currently lacks is multiplayer mode, and this is one way of doing it.

It does make more sense to have something like this in sites where you can move things, and canvases, but I do think it would be nice to have this + a chatroom in websites. Some sort of “good old internet” feeling.