If I can be frank, I'm reading from your tone that you're not here for polite, factual persuasion. But if I'm wrong, or someone else sees this, I gotta drop a fact check on the 'Lina can't win cases' myth:
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/out-with-a-bang-as-ftc-beats-the
More practically, this loss discredits the main argument from Wall Street. Dealmakers, and thinkers like Larry Summers, have often said that while Biden antitrust enforcers are aggressive, if corporations are willing to go to court, the government is likely to lose because judges won’t let them rewrite the law. This narrative was so strong that Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter were questioned in Congress as to whether they were even trying to win. It’s always been a narrow and bad faith critique, but this victory, plus, the win in the Fifth Circuit over Illumina, should put that narrative to rest. Antitrust lawyers will tell their clients to go to court at their peril.
It's kind of a deep dive, but it's worth it.
I don't think it's secret. A lot of OpenAI's business strategy is to warn of the danger of their own project as a means of hyping it.
OpenAI, despite having produced a pretty novel product, doesn't really have a sound business model. LLMs are actually expensive to run. The energy and processing is not cheap, and it's really not clear that they produce something of value. It's a cool party trick, but a lot of the use cases just aren't cost effective at this point. That makes their innovation hard to commercialize. So OpenAI promotes itself like online clickbait games.
You know the ones that are like, 'WARNING: This game is so sexy it is ADDICTIVE! Do NOT play our game if you don't want to CUM TOO HARD!'
That's OpenAI's marketing strategy.