In the past few weeks, a wide network of X accounts have repeatedly claimed that those raising concerns about AI are merely pawns in a well-funded psyop run by powerful interests. So I followed the money behind them. Here's what I found 🧵

🧵 A week ago, OpenAI published its technical report on the Hugging Face incident. It describes agents building a message board on internal services to collude with one another. It does not mention that *a second swarm* spent those same weeks running one on the public internet.

My newest for @TheMidasProj : Why did OpenAI make headlines for blaming data center pushback on China? Why are they beginning to imply economic findings that their research doesn't support? And why is their child safety blueprint AI-generated? My take on it all 👇

This interview of me by @dwallacewells in the New York Times ( manages to touch on a lot of themes from my new book on AI. If you want to read the book's introduction, and excerpts from other chapters, they're here:

Wild tweet. They frame it like the best-performing firms use skills/plugins more. But, in the blog post, OpenAI defines a "frontier" firm not based on business performance but as a firm in the top 10% *of token usage.* i.e. the claim amounts to "Firms that use more AI use more AI features" ... okay! Would be weird if that wasn't the case.

I disagree with Dean on many issues — but this doesn’t surprise me at all, because it’s obvious he is a truth-seeker at his core who isn’t adopting beliefs because they are popular, nor because “his side” holds them, nor because they are professionally useful (obviously the opposite is true in many cases…) Instead he’s clearly thinking “what do I believe about this issue” and reasoning his way to an answer which will, in many cases, disagree with the answers around him. And as most Twitter users know, he doesn’t bite his tongue when his answer departs from orthodoxy/the party line. This has the effect of making him deeply unlikable to anyone especially sensitive to the ways in which his views diverge from their own, but everyone should be so lucky as to have a critic who will actually engage with the substance of the question rather than nodding along or falling in line. In particular OpenAI and the US Government, two of the most important institutions in history, who are tasked with a number of extremely thorny questions in the coming years. We’d be in a much worse world if people like Dean weren’t speaking their minds (and getting planted hit pieces as thanks).