> Prove it. But you can’t, which is problematic for you.

More honestly: "Convince me. Except I've already made up my mind, so I'll never let you."

And like yeah, that does seem to be the case, so that's a bit rough indeed.

That said, if you feel like being a bit intellectually daring tonight, here you go: https://youtu.be/87DyyMV0kCY

> Nobody should believe anything OpenAI says about anything.

It's a great thing you bring up beliefs: it's the only thing people ever have, both you and me.

Personally, after hearing their account (linked above), I don't find much to disbelieve on it. It's just a series of "oh okay, that's fun, makes sense" moments. It's normal stuff. They're definitely at least a little proud of having popped a few shops, but that's very realistic in its own way.

I guess your best next option is waiting for a lawsuit to reach discovery or something, and then it's a matter of how dedicated you are to your disbelief. This indeed hasn't happened yet though, if it ever will, so nothing for me to provide (nor for you).

Speaking of, note that I don't have any more reason to believe the likes of you than I do OpenAI. Especially because it all just comes across as trite cynicism, mixed with generous amounts of wishful thinking. I also happen to be simply using these things, so that further plays into why I don't find these events particularly miraculous. It's already existing capability for the most part, so why would I? The only difference is disabled guardrails and better temporal coherence, which is exactly what you'd expect from upcoming models still in eval.

> or they’re incompetent by building a sandbox their AI could break out of.

One could definitely make the argument that someone was at least a little asleep at the wheel, but I don't think that makes them particularly incompetent. Just the normal variety you'll find anywhere else.