Editing Openai/6957ea13-bba8-800c-9df9-847ec4f820c6 (section)

=== User: What is not certain: ===
What is not certain:
collapse timeline,
whether internal course correction happens,
whether regulation props the model up artificially.

---

Agreed. My own personal history has a pattern of underestimating how long greed and stupidity can stretch timeframes, so I won't speculate much on that. And this also has so many moving parts, like that the industry will start needing a scapegoat for the entire overbuying and general mis-allocation of funding, and OpenAI will start to fit into the role of the scapegoat more and more. So yeah, we'll see.

Internal course change is the only way out that I see, but the longer it takes, the harder it gets to execute it even when the will is there. If you lose user trust with overpromises and claims of quality that doesn't align with direct experience, then at some point it will be very difficult to claim quality even when it now actually is there. You have conditioned people to assume that you are lying even when you aren't. So yeah, I hope that there will be a course change, but as time goes by, the probability lowers.

If regulation props up the model, then no one wins. Even those who think they win will barely win in short term. It wasn't long ago when the soviets tried to hide product quality behind the hidden curtain made to hide the truth of free competitive markets. It won't last long and the entire society will collapse under this rule when you incentivize optics over competence on scale.
So yeah, if US AI companies get regulatory capture, lose any incentive to offer quality user experience from that, and then just pat each other on their backs for headlines of "Research shows U.S. models are 43.7% percent better then the rest of the world's!" while the entire country is using VPNs to access truly capable models abroad. Then this will end up bad for everyone, including those who think that now they're living the good life under regulatory protection