I suspect they do care about communicating with customers, but it's total chaos and carnage internally.
Such as "decided it wasn't an operational priority to email users when features were enabled for them".
You could literally hire an entirely new guy, give him instructions to build such an email system, and let him put the right triggers on the user account permissions database to send out the right emails at the right time.
And then, when it's built, you can start adding more features like sending the emails only when demand is low and/or at times of day when you get the best click through rate. And then next you can start measuring the increase in revenue from sending those emails.
Before long, you have a whole marketing and comms team. Which you probably want as a big company anyway.
Incremental rollouts are hard.
Incremental rollouts are hard, and so is communicating in a way that makes everyone happy.
This is a large part of what held them back: GPT3.5 had most of the capabilities of the initial ChatGPT release, just with a different interface. Yet GPT3.5 failed to get any hype because the rollout was glacial. They made some claims that it was great, but to verify this for yourself you had to wait months. Only when they finally made a product that everyone could try out at the same time, with minimal hassle, did OpenAI turn from a "niche research company" to the fastest growing start-up. And this seems to have been a one-time thing, now they are back to staggered releases.
I believe two other factors were the cost (especially of fine tuned models, IIRC fine tuned davinci cost $0.20 per thousand tokens) and also that OpenAI hadn't very clearly shown just how much higher the quality could get once RLHF'd. I remember asking davinci-instruct to parse some data, and the reliability really seemed much lower than ChatGPT at launch, to the point that, at the time, I thought GPT-4 was secretly powering ChatGPT.
That hasn't happened yet for OpenAI, but I'm sure it will happen eventually, and then we'll know.
This is my best guess as well, they are rocketing down the interstate at 200mph and just trying to keep the wheels on the car. When you're absolutely killing it I guess making X% more by being better at messaging just isn't worth it since to do that you'd have to take someone off something potentially more critical. Still makes me a little sad though.
Aren't they unprofitable? and have fierce competition from everyone?
Plus they make 20 dollars a month from a lot of people.
The best defence is to move so quickly that you are an established part of the business framework by the time these forces can gather, or to go so slowly that nobody takes you as a threat.
No startup can go slowly.
This question is poorly formed because it’s not clear who the “we” is. If it’s you and me, that train left the station a while ago. If it’s any humans, well Sam Altman is probably a human and all of these are impressive products, but still just tools.
To use a fictional but entirely apt quote:
> I say your civilization because as soon as we started thinking for you, it really became our civilization, which is, of course, what this is all about: Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You had your time. The future is our world, Morpheus. The future is our time.
What are some metrics that justify this claim?
They are also on pace to exceed $1B in revenue. [1]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-faste...
[1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-passes-1-bill...
