They have historically tended to get approved through means verging-on “graft/corruption/lies” - the promised benefits don’t materialize, the costs are worse than initially claimed, the politicians who approve it seem to profit when their constituents don’t - this would also be reason enough.
And they’re the physical reification and arguably the Achilles heel of the otherwise nebulous and impossible-to-defy yet hugely disliked phenomenon of AI everywhere all of the time, which yet again would be reason enough (multiple times over - ethical concerns, environmental concerns, etc).
Compounding these many good reasons to dislike them, there also aren’t many (or any?) good reasons to actively like them.
“Everyone else, I would say, was more of a ChatGPT person, and again, using it for small secretarial tasks or consumer fun use cases. But I didn’t meet a lot of people who suggested to me that AI was essential or important to their work.”
Convincing people that it slurps up infinite water and contains the world's stolen information like some bad National Treasure script is genius.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
Being big brother of sorts doesn’t help. Particularly as they’re not quite right all the time. But they are quite confident.
See https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5920573-openai-chinese...
Article quotes OpenAI that anti-data-center content was being produced by ChatGPT (so it’s really sam altman funding it when you think about it)