OpenAI isn’t doing as well financially as it would like to to meet investor expectations, so they did something like a pause to provide a covering excuse for this, not because they have any safety-based motivation for doing so.
Prudence is potentially temporary, but incompetence is long-term. Revenues at any given time are usually taken as a projection of future revenues.
They are deliberately pretty vague about when they paused the training, no? Though it’s true that current training doesn’t really affect revenues anyway; only deployed models do. Then again, an even more galaxy-brained take is that they make announces like this in general in order to inoculate against investor expectations, but if they do this often enough it works against point #1.
(I’m not saying that any of these are their actual motivations. I’m just describing how these hypotheses would work.)
whats does this mean? what’s the hypothesis?
OpenAI isn’t doing as well financially as it would like to to meet investor expectations, so they did something like a pause to provide a covering excuse for this, not because they have any safety-based motivation for doing so.
Why do investors care whether the financial underperformance is coming from incompetence or prudence?
The underperformance was in the past whereas the pause/safety actions start now. The latter cannot explain the former.
Prudence is potentially temporary, but incompetence is long-term. Revenues at any given time are usually taken as a projection of future revenues.
They are deliberately pretty vague about when they paused the training, no? Though it’s true that current training doesn’t really affect revenues anyway; only deployed models do. Then again, an even more galaxy-brained take is that they make announces like this in general in order to inoculate against investor expectations, but if they do this often enough it works against point #1.
(I’m not saying that any of these are their actual motivations. I’m just describing how these hypotheses would work.)