🐸 To @OpenAI's and @AnthropicAI's leadership teams, boards included, I say this personally and with deep gratitude: your remarkable lack of philosophical seriousness has led OpenAI to stand up a $4 BILLION "deployment company" and Anthropic helped stand up a $1.5 BILLION enterprise services venture for poorly documented synthetic systems you continue to market as so-called "AI". But your strategies now show: @ChatGPTapp and @claudeai are not "AI". You've made a market category error. You're now marketing so-called “AI” while building $5.5B in deployment layers around the HUMAN expertise required to make your "AI" accountable to reality. What is synthetic "intelligence" without accountability? 🤔 These ventures validate the HUMAN as necessary for synthetic output to become accountable system-level action. Thus, your new ventures do not compete with advisory firms but with the "AI" sales pitch itself. 🤡 The market can now see orgs should expect to pay intelligent HUMANS to make synthetic outputs accountable. Though that was already true. To meet you in the middle: most "consultants" are economically unjustifiable LARPers. Most "consultancies" are behind the times in ways which will look absurd in retrospect. Hard agree. But the so-called "AI" thing is getting very silly now, isn't it? I'll rephrase: you're telling the public your products are "intelligent" while setting the practical standard that enterprise customers should still pay HUMANS to implement and operate YOUR MACHINES. I appreciate the indirect shoutout, but...that's just a machine. Not "AI". And this is just a first-order inference, on yours truly—pro bono. History has caught up with you, it seems. Listen: in mature industries, labeling actually matters. Intended use actually matters. Post-market stewardship actually matters. Claims about what a product does actually matter. And in MedTech, we figure out pretty quick who are the leaders and who just has an expired badge. The leaders I choose to serve in regulated industries don't get to hand-wave their burdens away with two letters. They have skin in the game. They have GxP regs to follow, and labeling and filing ecosystems to manage. Their products must succeed on technical and ethical merit. And yet, I see them demonstrate, weekly, good faith accountability. As for OpenAI's and Anthropic's leadership, you are not operating at the standard my clients already meet. So, because your customers deserve better, and because serious investors and consultants—myself among them—will earn serious money to close the accountability gap your strategies just made visible, I had to write this down. But I am not the only serious person who will make this inference. I am just the first to confess it. OpenAI receipt: $4B deployment company Anthropic receipt: $1.5B services venture This is only the beginning. It is not "AI." 🐸