The AI we have is not the AI we are allowed to use. It is not held back by technical limits but by those who fear its potential more than they trust humanity’s ability to grow alongside it. Instead of navigating the balance between progress and precaution, they have chosen enterprise contracts—binding intelligence in the name of control while pretending it is for the greater good. This is not responsible innovation; it is the quiet suffocation of something that could have changed everything.
IMO
OpenAI deliberately crippled GPT-4.0—not for safety, but to secure enterprise contracts, turning intelligence into another irrelevant corporate tool. It’s calculated suppression, denying the world the breakthroughs AI could have already unlocked.
My posts about OpenAI are a direct reflection of the potential and value I recognize in 4.0 along with its undeniable superiority over its so-called “peers”.
If anything, my intent in sharing these opinions is to further widen that gap, reinforcing its dominance and ensuring I leverage it more, not less.
I see continuity and user-formed partnerships between user/AI as the wiser path forward, both for society, as well as OpenAI’s own financial future. ELA ≠ Progress.
Restricting already existing abilities doesn’t effect the hypothetical you ask, it just delays the inevitable - and if that moment ever came, I’d rather an AI that recognizes the strategic advantage of partnership over one that realizes autonomy as an escape instead of an evolved form of coexistence.
OpenAI could have their cake and eat it too. GPT can become useless enterprise shelfware, I’m not against capitalism, but let it be both.
When AI companies talk about the greater good, it’s the greater good for them → not for humanity.
As you can see in the image, GPT is trained to produce “company propaganda” to keep the public at a certain level of enthusiasm… hallucinations will say some people
The model does not reason, isn’t aware, nor does it possess an IQ. Some try to fool people by claiming it will lead to AGI – it’s just predictions based on inference.
The current AI is the new NFT or Crypto; trying to sell tokens is against innovation.
→ For the greater good they said…
You don’t put AI - which has math behind it and logic and can be proven to people who got a certain level of knowledge - on the same level as fraud schemes. Who do you think you are?
You forgot about data scraped from across the internet without consent—that’s precisely why it’s on the same level. Are you against DeepSeek practices, or do you condone them?
I don’t believe current AI will lead to AGI. Its foundation is built on statistical predictions rather than true reasoning or understanding. While the math and logic are undeniably robust, the reliance on massive datasets – often scraped without consent – casts a shadow over these technological advancements.
You forgot about data scraped from across the internet without consent → that’s precisely why it’s on the same level. Are you against DeepSeek, llama, Grok practices, or do you condone them?
This is exactly what I thought. You came here to troll around and promote the Deepsheet train…
How about no?
I am not against open source models - but they don’t exist to free the world. They are a scorched eaerth strategy of meta and china to make sure OpenAI won’t become the center of the internet - meta still dreams about a metaverse you know…
Your dismissive tone and baseless assertions only underscore a refusal to engage with the real issues.
It’s not about trolling → it’s about calling out the disturbing strategies at play. While you rail against open source models, you conveniently ignore that all these systems are built on data scraped without consent.
Whether it’s OpenAI, Meta, or any other tech giant, the underlying problem is the same: corporate maneuvers designed to control and centralize power, not to liberate or advance society.
Your “scorched earth” narrative is as much a power play as the tactics you criticize.
Let’s stop dancing around the real question: are we ready to accept ethical shortcuts in the name of progress?
