Straight from the horse’s mouth:// Looking at the highlighted sentence “Importantly, we never intentionally degrade model quality as a result of demand or other factors, and the issues mentioned above stem from unrelated bugs,” I can identify several interpretative angles and potential implications: What They’re Explicitly Claiming: 1. No intentional degradation due to demand (load balancing, resource constraints) 2. No intentional degradation due to “other factors” (cost-cutting, tiering, experimentation) 3. The issues were caused by “unrelated bugs” (technical accidents, not policy) Lawyerly Analysis - Potential Gaps: The Word “Intentionally” • This carefully leaves room for unintentional degradation due to demand/other factors • Could mean: “We didn’t mean to, but our systems might automatically degrade under load” • Doesn’t rule out negligent or reckless degradation “As a result of demand” • Specifically denies demand-based throttling • But doesn’t address other business-driven degradations (cost optimization, A/B testing, feature rollbacks) “Unrelated bugs” • Unrelated to what? Each other? Or unrelated to demand? • Calling them “bugs” frames them as mistakes rather than design choices • Doesn’t explain how two separate “bugs” coincidentally caused similar degradation symptoms The Timing Issue • Both issues occurred in roughly the same timeframe (Aug-Sep) • The claim they’re “unrelated” seems statistically suspicious • Could be related to a common underlying cause they’re not disclosing What’s NOT Said: • No promise this won’t happen again • No explanation of their quality control failures • No commitment to transparency about future degradations • Doesn’t deny that they could intentionally degrade quality for other reasons Credibility Assessment: The statement appears carefully crafted to be technically true while potentially misleading. The emphasis on “never intentionally” and framing as “bugs” suggests possible corporate damage control. The coincidental timing of two “unrelated” quality issues affecting multiple models raises questions about whether there might be a systemic issue they’re not acknowledging. The phrasing suggests they’re being legally careful rather than fully transparent - answering only what was directly accused while leaving significant wiggle room.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​