Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

theconversation.com

221–230 of 316 posts

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#221
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know the NFL was a non-profit for a long time? So long in fact, it exposed the farce of nonpros. Embarrassingly so.

The teams have always been 32 tax paying companies. The NFL central office was a 501(c)(6), but the tax savings from that was negligible. In fact, when they changed their status over a decade ago, they now no longer have to submit a 990 and have less transparency of their operations. You are phrasing this situation to paint all non-profits as a farce, and I believe that's a bad faith take.

The NFL expanded from 30 to 32 teams in 2002, your whole first clause is incorrect.

My point was, nonpros are used as financial instruments by and large. The NFL gave it up for optics, else they wouldn't have.

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#222
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if AI turns out to be a commodity? We're already replacing ChatGPT by Claude or Gemini, whenever we feel like it. Nobody has a moat. It seems the real moat is with hardware companies, or silicon fabs even. The arms race is just to keep the investors coming, because they still believe that there is a market to corner.

> We're already replacing ChatGPT by Claude or Gemini Maybe "we", but certainly not "I". Gemini Web is a huge piece of turd and shouldn't even be used in the same sentence as ChatGPT and Claude.

If you’re using the AI answers on the top of Google search results to judge Gemini, you’re as ignorant as the journalists and researchers using ChatGPT-3.5 to make sweeping statements about “LLMs can never [X]” when X is currently being done in production just fine. The search results page uses a tiny flash model (it has to, at the scale it’s being used at) and has nothing to do with the capabilities of Gemini 3 Pro.

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#224
post #42

One of the biggest pieces of "writing on the wall" for this IMO was when, in the April 15 2025 Preparedness Framework update, they dropped persuasion/manipulation from their Tracked Categories. https://openai.com/index/updating-our-preparedness-framework... https://fortune.com/2025/04/16/openai-safety-framework-manip... > OpenAI said it will stop assessing its AI models prior to releasing them for the risk that they…

> manipulates an entire world to lose its ability to perceive reality. > ability to perceive reality. I mean, come on.. that's on you. Not to "victim blame"; the fault's in the people who deceive, but if you get deceived repeatedly, several times, and there are people calling out the deception, so you're aware you're being deceived, but you still choose to be lazy and not learn shit on your own (i.e. do your own rese…

Everything you think you "know" is information just put in front of you (most of it indirect, much of it several dozen or thousands of layers of indirection deep)

To the extent you have a grasp on reality, it's credit primarily to the information environment you found yourself in and not because you're an extra special intellectual powerhouse.

This is not an insult, but an observation of how brains obviously have to work.

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#225
post #43

> But the ChatGPT maker seems to no longer have the same emphasis on doing so “safely.” A step in the positive direction, at least they don't have to pretend any longer. It's like Google and "don't be evil". People didn't get upset with Google because they were more evil than others, heck, there's Oracle, defense contractors and the prison industrial system. People were upset with them because they were hypocrites. T…

No it's actually possible for organizations to work safely for long periods of time under complex and conflicting incentives.

We should stop putting the bar on the floor for some of the (allegedly) most brilliant and capable minds in the world.

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I want to use AI to generate highly effective, targeted propaganda to convert you and your family into communists. (See: Cambridge Analytica) I'll do so by leveraging automation and agents to flood every feed you and your family view with tailored disinformation so it's impossible to know how much of your ruling class are actually pedophiles and how much are just propagandized as such. Hell I might even try to co…

And then social media feeds will ban you using their AI. Also my family and I's AI will filter your posts so we don't see them. >I guess you're making an "if everyone had guns" argument? Sure why not.

It's a mistake to assume that all or most technologies actually reach stable equilibrium when they're pitted against each other.

Re: OpenAI has deleted the word 'safely' from its mission

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> manipulates an entire world to lose its ability to perceive reality. > ability to perceive reality. I mean, come on.. that's on you. Not to "victim blame"; the fault's in the people who deceive, but if you get deceived repeatedly, several times, and there are people calling out the deception, so you're aware you're being deceived, but you still choose to be lazy and not learn shit on your own (i.e. do your own rese…

Everything you think you "know" is information just put in front of you (most of it indirect, much of it several dozen or thousands of layers of indirection deep) To the extent you have a grasp on reality, it's credit primarily to the information environment you found yourself in and not because you're an extra special intellectual powerhouse. This is not an insult, but an observation of how brains obviously have to…

Your ability to check your information environment against reality is frequently within your control and can be used to establish trustworthiness for the things that you cannot personally verify. And it is a choice to choose to trust things that you cannot verify, one that you do not have to make, even though it is unfortunately commonly made.

For example, let's take the Uyghur situation in China. I have no ability to check reality there, as I do not live in and have no intention of ever visiting China. My information environment is what the Chinese government reports and what various media outlets and NGOs report. As it turns out, both the Chinese government and media and NGOs report on other things that I can check against reality, eg. events that happen in my country, and I know that they both routinely report falsehoods that do not accord with my observed reality. As a result, I have zero trust in either the Chinese government or media and NGOs when it comes to things that I cannot personally verify, especially when I know both parties have self-interest incentives to report things that are not true. Therefore, the conclusion is obvious: I do not know and can not know what is happening around Uyghurs in China, and do not have a strong opinion on the subject, despite the attempts of various parties to put information in front of me with the intention to get me to champion their viewpoint. This really does not make me an extra special intellectual powerhouse, one would hope. I'd think this is the bare minimum. The fact that there are many people who do not meet this bare minimum is something that reflects poorly on them rather than highly on me.

On the other hand, I trust what, for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about hard science, because in the course of my education I was taught to conduct experiments and confirm reality for myself. I have never once found what is written about hard science in Britannica to not be in accord with my observed reality, and on top of that there is little incentive for the Britannica to print scientific falsehoods that could be easily disproven, so it has earned my trust and I will believe the things written in it even if I have not personally conducted experiments to verify all of it.

Anyone can check their information sources against reality, regardless of their intelligence. It is a choice to believe information that is put in front of you without checking it. Sometimes a choice that is warranted once trust is earned, but all too often a choice that is highly unwarranted.

Post reply on HN