I believe Theranos’ fraud was telling people their blood was being processed by their invention while actually sending it to a regular lab. They stepped over the line. As far as I know, OpenAI hasn’t done anything like this. What they are actually selling can be tried out by their customers. Telling people that AGI is just around the cor…
I believe Theranos’ fraud was telling people their blood was being processed by their invention while actually sending it to a regular lab. They stepped over the line. As far as I know, OpenAI hasn’t done anything like this. What they are actually selling can be tried out by their customers. Telling people that AGI is just around the corner is just hype and legal. Of course, if it is seen as unrealistic, it will damage their reputation and investors will bail. I think we are at that point now.
Actually, she was not convicted for that specifically, she was convicted for telling investors she could do something that she knowingly couldn't. The big debate, after the whole Theranos debacle, was about the Silicon Valley idea of "fake it until you make it". OpenAI is also telling investors they can do something (in the near future) that they know they cannot. The only difference with Theranos is that the actual risk for people using it, is harder to understand (fake blood-testing results vs fake information).
Regardless of whether a particular case rises to the level of fraud in the legal sense, one thing is clear: the “fake it till you make it” crowd give legitimate scientists and engineers a bad name.
I believe Theranos’ fraud was telling people their blood was being processed by their invention while actually sending it to a regular lab. They stepped over the line. As far as I know, OpenAI hasn’t done anything like this. What they are actually selling can be tried out by their customers. Telling people that AGI is just around the corner is just hype and legal. Of course, if it is seen as unrealistic, it will damage their reputation and investors will bail. I think we are at that point now.
Actually, she was not convicted for that specifically, she was convicted for telling investors she could do something that she knowingly couldn't. The big debate, after the whole Theranos debacle, was about the Silicon Valley idea of "fake it until you make it". OpenAI is also telling investors they can do something (in the near future) that they know they cannot. The only difference with Theranos is that the actual risk for people using it, is harder to understand (fake blood-testing results vs fake information).
Regardless of whether a particular case rises to the level of fraud in the legal sense, one thing is clear: the “fake it till you make it” crowd give legitimate scientists and engineers a bad name.
No self respecting scientist could/would knowingly work for an organization that was engaging in that.