[mahjongmen]

I'll start off with, I'm not one of our founders and REALLY wouldn't want to be publicly held accountable for policies or commitments until I've been able to get internal alignment on things I say.

That being said, since I do manage our Search and Retrieval offering, if we were to deprecate any of our embedding models (which is generally the risk of closed-source models), I will make sure that there is an "escape hatch" for users.

Heard on what your concerns are though :)

[wrs]

To someone building a long term dataset, I’m not sure what assurances would help. Certainly a personal assurance doesn’t (though you’re kind to offer), and even a corporate statement doesn’t (new owners or C-suite could walk that back anytime). It might take a formal third-party “model escrow” arrangement to be really convincing.

[mahjongmen]

Hey All,

Thanks for engaging! Apologies for the delay but HN seems to have throttled my account from posting so I'm answering as fast as I can (or they will let me).

You're right in the sense that I could wake up tomorrow and Cohere could lay me off, fire me, or I could quit! All of these are possible statements, but the reason I don't want to publicly commit particularly on our policy on Open Sourcing our models if our business is a going concern or if we deprecate our models is as follows:

1) Cohere is not a going concern 2) I haven't thought about deprecating any of our embedding models because of the reason that simonw stated!

I wouldn't say I'm a Cohere employee playing PR - I'm responsible for all the search and embedding models and products at Cohere and I care deeply on how our users perceive, understand and user our models/products. I'm actually really excited that there is so much engagement this time around (a far cry from 2021 - when I started).

For reference in terms of policies: For our SaaS API, I wrote our model deprecation policy (https://docs.cohere.com/docs/deprecations) and had only deprecated our Rerank-v2.0 Models largely because they were stateless

Again - happy for all the engagement. Heard on the things we can improve on!

[brianshaler]

This is a little off-topic and nitpicky, so I waited a day to avoid cluttering comments while the thread was on the front page..

I believe the term "going concern" means exactly the opposite of what you were trying to say here. Generally, comments about pedantry aren't helpful or uninteresting. This case was amusing to me in the context of assuring people Cohere is likely to stay around by boldly stating Cohere is at risk of being insolvent or ceasing operations ("Cohere is not a going concern"). Beyond that, I think it's pretty interesting how understandable it is to look at the term without knowing its meaning and assume the presence of the word "concern" must mean people are concerned about it going [bankrupt?].

I'm sure given the context nobody got the wrong impression. If anything, it makes me wonder if the term could, at least in informal contexts, reach a point of semantic inversion.

[Cheer2171]

> I'm not one of our founders and REALLY wouldn't want to be publicly held accountable for policies or commitments

I don't mean to phrase this in a hostile way, but then what is even the point of posting? Your word means nothing. You are not in a position to promise anything. You could wake up one morning and find yourself laid off with all your accounts terminated.

And the fact that a Cohere employee is playing PR trying to deflect this issue gives me less faith, not more.

[xena]

I can claim that my car is able to fly. That does not mean pressing the gas pedal makes it generate lift.

[handfuloflight]

What a disingenuous comparison. The contention here is organizational politics, not physics.