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.)
The parallel cynical hypothesis:
https://in.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/openais-q2-revenue-growth-lagged-anthropic-as-losses-deepened-wsj-reports-5562578
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.)