in order to qualify as an interpretaility company, the company must offer interpretability services, and have secured >25% of its ARR from interpretability contracts or products.
It's okay for the company to have received non-profit funding at first, as long as it's later followed by a round of VC/private for-profit funding.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ754 | |
| 2 | Ṁ335 | |
| 3 | Ṁ294 | |
| 4 | Ṁ20 | |
| 5 | Ṁ5 |
People are also trading
Goodfire AI's seed round was $7M. Their valuation was not disclosed but it's likely already $20M-$40M.
If they reach round A, I think they are likely to cross $100M, but I wasn't able to find any information about contracts/ARR online, which is pretty much a prerequisite for a round A.
By saying that the company must offer interpretability services, are you ruling out an interpretability product? Two things come to mind: a company offering models that are built from the ground up to be interpretable (e.g. neural nets trained to do case-based reasoning using prototypes) or a company offering automated mechanistic interpretability of black box models.
@mariopasquato A product that does automated interpretability counts as interpretability services. A company offering pre-trained interpretable models does not count for this question directly, unless e.g. the company provides the tooling to make models interpretable.