This is the worst possible objection to scientific research. All medication in the US is approved by research conducted by the company trying to sell it, because nobody else is motivated to do it. And if it's properly conducted and preregistered, this doesn't matter!
It basically just shows you're looking for a way to dismiss something that doesn't require you to understand it or check their work.
It seems completely obvious that AI companies benefit massively from (and in many cases likely only continue to stay afloat because of) 'research papers' like this.
I also don't think a scientist purely interested in the truth would be claiming anything about concepts like 'introspection' that are nebulous and only really serve to capture the imagination of the general public (and, of course, investors).
The difference between AI and the pharmaceutical industry should be clear: one produces products of undeniable value, and the other is largely built on hype and endless dreaming of what might come next, but so far hasn't.
> So you don't think it's relevant at all? Really?
It's relevant if it's not preregistered. I agree this one is not preregistered and they should release their model weights instead of doing random tinkering on it themselves.
It basically just shows you're looking for a way to dismiss something that doesn't require you to understand it or check their work.