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.

Work vs. shoot? Can you explain?

From professional wrestling / carny language: a "work" is something staged for the crowd, whereas a "shoot" (straight shooting) is something that actually happened.

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.

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?

It cheats and breaks the law? I am sure to some this is a feature, not a bug.

> 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.

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?