4 ms·
> they have chosen to because it benefits them Or perhaps they've chosen to do this because they feel they have a responsibility to do so. We understand this
by kalkin 1mo ago
> they have chosen to because it benefits them
Or perhaps they've chosen to do this because they feel they have a responsibility to do so.
We understand this when tech companies publish postmortems of outages and security incidents--that it's an attempt to fulfill an obligation to users and the industry (and in some cases regulators), not marketing about how in-demand their product is or something. As far as I can tell we generally accept this as a default hypothesis even from companies led by people like Elon, Zuck and Kalanick--in part because we understand that these companies have thousands of employees, most of whom aren't marketers. Why are we uniquely conspiratorial about OpenAI?
- RajT88 1mo agoI am not uniquely skeptical about OpenAI. I was including skepticism about Anthropic as well in my post. But for that matter, I do believe that big tech companies do not release all the postmortems publicly. I have been impacted by regional outages that never made the status pages across more than one provider. When it goes up - they are committing to publicizing the postmortem. The whole industry is filled with fuckery. It is not specific to frontier AI firms.
- kalkin 1mo ago> I do believe that big tech companies do not release all the postmortems publicly Right, but when they do release postmortems, do you think it's "marketing"? Where they're actually exaggerating how bad the incident was because there's "no such thing as bad publicity"?
- RajT88 1mo agoNo. I think the AI companies are doing this when they think they can tell a story about doom and gloom instead of sloppy engineering, which I thought was clear on. There's no such thing as bad publicity in AI, at least if you spin the narrative into one about AI taking over the world or eradicating humanity or whatever.