3 ms·

Please note that this Forbes author in particular seems to have a vendetta against Stability AI and has been publishing hit pieces for months now.

by ronsor 3y ago

minimaxir 3y ago
The accusations of bias is why it's very relevant that there are 32 independent sources for the article. Bloomberg also published a similar independent negative article about Stability AI, unless you believe both Forbes and Bloomberg have a thing against them: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/stability-ai-ceo-emad-mostaque-resignation-what-happened?embedded-checkout=true https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/stability...
- sandspar 3y ago
  People don't seem to have wrapped their heads around the consequences of media abundance coupled with media coordination. You can find 32 sources to back up anything.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    I just had 32 unnamed sources tell me you cannot :)
    - throwup238 3y ago
      I have 64 unnamed sources telling me that all of your sources are actually just you wearing different hats.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  I have gotten to the point where I just give zero credibility to unnamed sources. And Forbes is sadly nowhere near as credible as it once was. It’s basically white collar Buzzfeed now. Which is not to say that I disagree with anything they said here or think they are lying, but if someone thinks it’s a hit piece, 30-some mostly unnamed sources won’t change their mind. A journalist can never be caught making up an unnamed source, it’s like saying “I don’t recall” on the stand.
- emadm 3y ago
  Bloomberg article is better, but note they also ran that I said was spy for the British government when I worked in counter extremism work including writing in this topic for Reuters, Wall Street Journal and others. These are details we gave them and they chose not to run. In addition they ran reporting that we raised less than $25 million of additional funding when we raised well over that when we said that was false based on sources again. We had to take it legal and right up to lead editor.
  - emadm 3y ago
    To be clear: we never raised less than $25m of additional funding. Here are some examples of the work that I actually did in public that they chose to run as I said I was a spy https://www.wsj.com/articles/emad-mostaque-the-spreading-menace-of-boko-haram-1422315934 https://www.wsj.com/articles/emad-mostaque-the-spreading-men... Here is me predicting ISIS as they would later be known would likely topple Western Iraq the following summer in December of 2013, top of business insiders chart of the year (which I think is very interesting) https://www.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-2013-12?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-2013-1...
    - Jackson__ 3y ago
      You'll be suing Forbes for libel then, right?
    - poopiokaka 3y ago
      You didn’t predict anything. This was a well shared idea back then. Stop trying to act like you were a god tier extremism researcher. It’s irrelevant.
  - poopiokaka 3y ago
    [flagged]
htrp 3y ago
I mean facts are facts. Emad is gone, the company has lost people (researchers and executives), and they have not announced a blockbuster AI funding round.
- astrange 3y ago
  Emad is still the company's majority shareholder and is also commenting on this thread, so I would not describe him as gone. Not sure if this article is a hit piece but it certainly is reporting a lot of normal situations for startups as if they're extremely bad or fraudulent. There's nothing new about tech companies not being profitable, or researchers leaving once they've done their research projects.
anon84873628 3y ago
On the other hand, if you believe some venture is scam, or is actually rotting under a glossy exterior, then it makes sense to keep writing about it and attempt to expose the situation over time. Especially if the subject keeps trying to cover up and advance the false narrative. So here we are today, who was right in the end?

Please note that this Forbes author in particular seems to have a vendetta against Stability AI and has been publishing hit pieces for months now.

by ronsor 3y ago

Please note that this Forbes author in particular seems to have a vendetta against Stability AI and has been publishing hit pieces for months now.

minimaxir 3y ago

The accusations of bias is why it's very relevant that there are 32 independent sources for the article. Bloomberg also published a similar independent negative article about Stability AI, unless you believe both Forbes and Bloomberg have a thing against them: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/stability-ai-ceo-emad-mostaque-resignation-what-happened?embedded-checkout=true https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/stability...

sandspar 3y ago
People don't seem to have wrapped their heads around the consequences of media abundance coupled with media coordination. You can find 32 sources to back up anything.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  I just had 32 unnamed sources tell me you cannot :)
  - throwup238 3y ago
    I have 64 unnamed sources telling me that all of your sources are actually just you wearing different hats.
mattmaroon 3y ago
I have gotten to the point where I just give zero credibility to unnamed sources. And Forbes is sadly nowhere near as credible as it once was. It’s basically white collar Buzzfeed now. Which is not to say that I disagree with anything they said here or think they are lying, but if someone thinks it’s a hit piece, 30-some mostly unnamed sources won’t change their mind. A journalist can never be caught making up an unnamed source, it’s like saying “I don’t recall” on the stand.
emadm 3y ago
Bloomberg article is better, but note they also ran that I said was spy for the British government when I worked in counter extremism work including writing in this topic for Reuters, Wall Street Journal and others. These are details we gave them and they chose not to run. In addition they ran reporting that we raised less than $25 million of additional funding when we raised well over that when we said that was false based on sources again. We had to take it legal and right up to lead editor.
- emadm 3y ago
  To be clear: we never raised less than $25m of additional funding. Here are some examples of the work that I actually did in public that they chose to run as I said I was a spy https://www.wsj.com/articles/emad-mostaque-the-spreading-menace-of-boko-haram-1422315934 https://www.wsj.com/articles/emad-mostaque-the-spreading-men... Here is me predicting ISIS as they would later be known would likely topple Western Iraq the following summer in December of 2013, top of business insiders chart of the year (which I think is very interesting) https://www.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-2013-12?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/most-important-charts-2013-1...
  - Jackson__ 3y ago
    You'll be suing Forbes for libel then, right?
  - poopiokaka 3y ago
    You didn’t predict anything. This was a well shared idea back then. Stop trying to act like you were a god tier extremism researcher. It’s irrelevant.
- poopiokaka 3y ago
  [flagged]

htrp 3y ago

I mean facts are facts. Emad is gone, the company has lost people (researchers and executives), and they have not announced a blockbuster AI funding round.

astrange 3y ago
Emad is still the company's majority shareholder and is also commenting on this thread, so I would not describe him as gone. Not sure if this article is a hit piece but it certainly is reporting a lot of normal situations for startups as if they're extremely bad or fraudulent. There's nothing new about tech companies not being profitable, or researchers leaving once they've done their research projects.

anon84873628 3y ago

On the other hand, if you believe some venture is scam, or is actually rotting under a glossy exterior, then it makes sense to keep writing about it and attempt to expose the situation over time. Especially if the subject keeps trying to cover up and advance the false narrative. So here we are today, who was right in the end?