So MIT is trying to tell us that there was no incentives, no VC money, no corruption involved here and just a naughty naughty PhD student?
This is how I see this: They published a false paper, knowing they would eventually be caught. But the boost that the paper had in AI marketcap and market bullishness and hype, far outweighs the consequences of this apology(not really) statement.
So they got a lot of money for hyping the AI, and now they pay off a small amount of it as backlash. still a huge net income. Pharma companies do this all the time. this is how they make money.
Reminder that if you link articles for your argument, doesn't necessarily mean that you are right. There are substantial amounts of false and slightly distorted papers and articles out there, even from the most valid publishers.
I work in academia. There is no way anything is so organized and directed as that. That would require laughable levels of efficiency and planning across multiple organizational layers. Do you know how long it takes to make literally any decision? Who would even be directing such a scheme? Are the president and this PhD student in cahoots on this insider trading scheme you are envisioning?
This is how I see this: They published a false paper, knowing they would eventually be caught. But the boost that the paper had in AI marketcap and market bullishness and hype, far outweighs the consequences of this apology(not really) statement.
So they got a lot of money for hyping the AI, and now they pay off a small amount of it as backlash. still a huge net income. Pharma companies do this all the time. this is how they make money.
Reminder that if you link articles for your argument, doesn't necessarily mean that you are right. There are substantial amounts of false and slightly distorted papers and articles out there, even from the most valid publishers.