Hacker News Reader

Comment by oathvz | Hacker News Reader

This is a natural follow up question -- what kind of an escalation or message should frontier labs/companies publish to be seen as genuine and not marketing gimmick?

View on HN

I'd say it's almost impossible at that point. Specifically, Altman said so many lies in the past that people stopped believing anything he says.

I think the core of this distrust is the fact that these companies positioned themselves against humanity from the start by saying people will lose most jobs etc. Not only it didn't happen, but many people feel several aspects of their lives got worse because of LLMs, in spite of obvious advantages. So the distrust and reluctance are real.

It's fine for the labs to publish model safety cards and stagger releases/limit it to a narrow test group as they are already doing, but saying they're doing it "because the models could be dangerous" comes off as unnecessary as best.

Unnecessary based on what exactly? Your vibes?

One of the main purposes of model cards, from the beginning, has been to outline the ways that a model could be harmful or dangerous, and mitigations that can be or have been taken to reduce those risks. How do you expect labs to publish model cards without talking about this rationale?

I think the point is that the model card should be released with the model, not foreshadowed by several months of ominous tweets from the CEO.

What? So it’s fine for them to be concerned about the safety, try to measure it, publish results about it, start with a cautious phased release approach, basically all the things they’re doing.

But if they say why they’re doing all those things, it’s too much? What?

I dont think they can, their rhetoric is so silly these days that if they did accidentally release something dangerous no one would believe them. The Boy who cried Rokos Basilisk I guess.

These chicken littles have lied far too many times in far too extreme ways in their desperate attempts to obtain a monopoly by regulation.

The remaining 'worthwhile message' would be that they have deleted their models and are dissolving the company, because they believe the risk was too great and was worth losing the revenue and risk being civically prosecuted by their investors, and will take the chance that they'll be able to convince a court/jury that they acted properly.

In other words, putting their own skin on the line for the veracity of their claim-- rather than everyone elses.

Such as? Yes, yes, we know OpenAI isn’t as open as you want. What else? What are all these egregious lies that the frontier labs have told you?

Well, you can start with this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/11/musk-v-opena...

So the people who tried to kick him out of the company now have a bunch of vague statements like there being "a pattern of behavior related to his honesty and candor". No other details. What a crushing indictment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com