Meta stock dips after AI product is delayed
Following reports of a delay in the rollout of its artificial intelligence (AI) product, Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META), which runs some of the most well-known social media platforms globally, saw...
This story originally appeared on Due
Following reports of a delay in the rollout of its artificial intelligence (AI) product, Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META), which runs some of the most well-known social media platforms globally, saw a decline in its stock price on Friday. While the larger S&P 500 index increased by a comparable amount, Meta's shares ended the day down 0.6%.
Meta stock dips after product delay
Late Thursday, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Meta had once again delayed the release of its flagship AI model, code-named 'Behemoth.' Sources with knowledge of the matter claim that company engineers are having difficulty optimizing the model's performance. According to the report, Behemoth's original launch date was April, which also happened to be Meta's first developer conference with an AI focus. The revised schedule now indicates a fall release, or possibly later, after an initial postponement to June.
Even though Meta has made a strong public commitment to AI, the delay reflects ongoing challenges within the company's development efforts. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has often highlighted AI's transformative potential, arguing that it could transform user interaction by providing AI-driven mental health support or even virtual friends.
Meta has not responded to the Journal's report with an official statement, but the company's goals for AI are still very clear. It believes that technology will play a significant role in its future development, especially in improving the user experience on its social media platforms, which include Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
Even so, some market watchers might consider the delay to be a calculated move rather than a serious setback. A cautious approach is more prudent because launching cutting-edge AI tools too soon could jeopardize user trust and performance. With its well-established platforms holding onto their leading market positions and bringing in sizable sums of money, Meta's core business is still doing quite well.
Although there was a short-term negative reaction from investors, this delay might not have a significant long-term effect. Even if it takes longer, the creation of sophisticated AI tools is not likely to derail Meta's overall course, as the company is still a major player in the tech sector.
Featured Image Credit: Julio Lopez; Pexels: Thank You!
The post Meta stock dips after AI product is delayed appeared first on Due.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
OpenAI Can Stop Pretending
OpenAI is a strange company for strange times. Valued at $300 billion—roughly the same as seven Fords or one and a half PepsiCos—the AI start-up has an era-defining product in ChatGPT and is racing to be the first to build superintelligent machines. The company is also, to the apparent frustration of its CEO Sam Altman, beholden to its nonprofit status. When OpenAI was founded in 2015, it was meant to be a research lab that would work toward the goal of AI that is 'safe' and 'benefits all of humanity.' There wasn't supposed to be any pressure—or desire, really—to make money. Later, in 2019, OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary to better attract investors—the types of people who might otherwise turn to the less scrupulous corporations that dot Silicon Valley. But even then, that part of the organization was under the nonprofit side's control. At the time, it had released no consumer products and capped how much money its investors could make. Then came ChatGPT. OpenAI's leadership had intended for the bot to provide insight into how people would use AI without any particular hope for widespread adoption. But ChatGPT became a hit, kicking 'off a growth curve like nothing we have ever seen,' as Altman wrote in an essay this past January. The product was so alluring that the entire tech industry seemed to pivot overnight into an AI arms race. Now, two and a half years since the chatbot's release, Altman says some half a billion people use the program each week, and he is chasing that success with new features and products—for shopping, coding, health care, finance, and seemingly any other industry imaginable. OpenAI is behaving like a typical business, because its rivals are typical businesses, and massive ones at that: Google and Meta, among others. [Read: OpenAI's ambitions just became crystal clear] Now 2015 feels like a very long time ago, and the charitable origins have turned into a ball and chain for OpenAI. Last December, after facing concerns from potential investors that pouring money into the company wouldn't pay off because of the nonprofit mission and complicated governance structure, the organization announced plans to change that: OpenAI was seeking to transition to a for-profit. The company argued that this was necessary to meet the tremendous costs of building advanced AI models. A nonprofit arm would still exist, though it would separately pursue 'charitable initiatives'—and it would not have any say over the actions of the for-profit, which would convert into a public-benefit corporation, or PBC. Corporate backers appeared satisfied: In March, the Japanese firm Softbank conditioned billions of dollars in investments on OpenAI changing its structure. Resistance came as swiftly as the new funding. Elon Musk—a co-founder of OpenAI who has since created his own rival firm, xAI, and seems to take every opportunity to undermine Altman—wrote on X that OpenAI 'was funded as an open source, nonprofit, but has become a closed source, profit-maximizer.' He had already sued the company for abandoning its founding mission in favor of financial gain, and claimed that the December proposal was further proof. Many unlikely allies emerged soon after. Attorneys general in multiple states, nonprofit groups, former OpenAI employees, outside AI experts, economists, lawyers, and three Nobel laureates all have raised concerns about the pivot, even petitioning to submit briefs to Musk's lawsuit. OpenAI backtracked, announcing a new plan earlier this month that would have the nonprofit remain in charge. Steve Sharpe, a spokesperson for OpenAI, told me over email that the new proposed structure 'puts us on the best path to' build a technology 'that could become one of the most powerful and beneficial tools in human history.' (The Atlantic entered into a corporate partnership with OpenAI in 2024.) Yet OpenAI's pursuit of industry-wide dominance shows no real signs of having hit a roadblock. The company has a close relationship with the Trump administration and is leading perhaps the biggest AI infrastructure buildout in history. Just this month, OpenAI announced a partnership with the United Arab Emirates and an expansion into personal gadgets—a forthcoming 'family of devices' developed with Jony Ive, former chief design officer at Apple. For-profit or not, the future of AI still appears to be very much in Altman's hands. Why all the worry about corporate structure anyway? Governance, boardroom processes, legal arcana—these things are not what sci-fi dreams are made of. Yet those concerned with the societal dangers that generative AI, and thus OpenAI, pose feel these matters are of profound importance. The still more powerful artificial 'general' intelligence, or AGI, that OpenAI and its competitors are chasing could theoretically cause mass unemployment, worsen the spread of misinformation, and violate all sorts of privacy laws. In the highest-flung doomsday scenarios, the technology brings about civilizational collapse. Altman has expressed these concerns himself—and so OpenAI's 2019 structure, which gave the nonprofit final say over the for-profit's actions, was meant to guide the company toward building the technology responsibly instead of rushing to release new AI products, sell subscriptions, and stay ahead of competitors. 'OpenAI's nonprofit mission, together with the legal structures committing it to that mission, were a big part of my decision to join and remain at the company,' Jacob Hilton, a former OpenAI employee who contributed to ChatGPT, among other projects, told me. In April, Hilton and a number of his former colleagues, represented by the Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, wrote a letter to the court hearing Musk's lawsuit, arguing that a large part of OpenAI's success depended on its commitment to safety and the benefit of humanity. To renege on, or at least minimize, that mission was a betrayal. The concerns extend well beyond former employees. Geoffrey Hinton, a computer scientist at the University of Toronto who last year received a Nobel Prize for his AI research, told me that OpenAI's original structure would better help 'prevent a super intelligent AI from ever wanting to take over.' Hinton is one of the Nobel laureates who has publicly opposed the tech company's for-profit shift, alongside the economists Joseph Stiglitz and Oliver Hart. The three academics, joining a number of influential lawyers, economists, and AI experts, in addition to several former OpenAI employees, including Hilton, signed an open letter in April urging the attorneys general in Delaware and California—where the company's nonprofit was incorporated and where the company is headquartered, respectively—to closely investigate the December proposal. According to its most recent tax filing, OpenAI is intended to build AGI 'that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return,' so disempowering the nonprofit seemed, to the signatories, self-evidently contradictory. Read: 'We're definitely going to build a bunker before we release AGI' In its initial proposal to transition to a for-profit, OpenAI still would have had some accountability as a public-benefit corporation: A PBC legally has to try to make profits for shareholders alongside pursuing a designated 'public benefit' (in this case, building 'safe' and 'beneficial' AI as outlined in OpenAI's founding mission). In its December announcement, OpenAI described the restructure as 'the next step in our mission.' But Michael Dorff, another signatory to the open letter and a law professor at UCLA who studies public-benefit corporations, explained to me that PBCs aren't necessarily an effective way to bring about public good. 'They are not great enforcement tools,' he said—they can 'nudge' a company toward a given cause but do not give regulators much authority over that commitment. (Anthropic and xAI, two of OpenAI's main competitors, are also public-benefit corporations.) OpenAI's proposed conversion also raised a whole other issue—a precedent for taking resources accrued under charitable intentions and repurposing them for profitable pursuits. And so yet another coalition, composed of nonprofits and advocacy groups, wrote its own petition for OpenAI's plans to be investigated, with the aim of preventing charitable organizations from being leveraged for financial gain in the future. Regulators, it turned out, were already watching. Three days after OpenAI's December announcement of the plans to revoke nonprofit oversight, Kathy Jennings, the attorney general of Delaware, notified the court presiding over Musk's lawsuit that her office was reviewing the proposed restructure to ensure that the corporation was fulfilling its charitable interest to build AI that benefits all of humanity. California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, was reviewing the restructure, as well. This ultimately led OpenAI to change plans. 'We made the decision for the nonprofit to stay in control after hearing from civic leaders and having discussions with the offices of the Attorneys General of California and Delaware,' Altman wrote in a letter to OpenAI employees earlier this month. The for-profit, meanwhile, will still transition to a PBC. The new plan is not yet a done deal: The offices of the attorneys general told me that they are reviewing the new proposal. Microsoft, OpenAI's closest corporate partner, has not yet agreed to the new structure. One could be forgiven for wondering what all the drama is for. Amid tension over OpenAI's corporate structure, the organization's corporate development hasn't so much as flinched. In just the past few weeks, the company has announced a new CEO of applications, someone to directly oversee and expand business operations; OpenAI for Countries, an initiative focused on building AI infrastructure around the world; and Codex, a powerful AI 'agent' that does coding tasks. To OpenAI, these endeavors legitimately contribute to benefiting humanity: building more and more useful AI tools; bringing those tools and the necessary infrastructure to run them to people around the world; drastically increasing the productivity of software engineers. No matter OpenAI's ultimate aims, in a race against Google and Meta, some commercial moves are necessary to stay ahead. And enriching OpenAI's investors and improving people's lives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The greater issue is this: There is no universal definition for 'safe' or 'beneficial' AI. A chatbot might help doctors process paperwork faster and help a student float through high school without learning a thing; an AI research assistant could help climate scientists arrive at novel insights while also consuming huge amounts of water and fossil fuels. Whatever definition OpenAI applies will be largely determined by its board. Altman, in his May letter to employees, contended that OpenAI is on the best path 'to continue to make rapid, safe progress and to put great AI in the hands of everyone.' But everyone, in this case, has to trust OpenAI's definition of safe progress. The nonprofit has not always been the most effective check on the company. In 2023, the nonprofit board—which then and now had 'control' over the for-profit subsidiary—removed Altman from his position as CEO. But the company's employees revolted, and he was reinstated shortly thereafter with the support of Microsoft. In other words, 'control' on paper does not always amount to much in reality. Sharpe, the OpenAI spokesperson, said the nonprofit will be able to appoint and remove directors to OpenAI's separate for-profit board, but declined to clarify whether its board will be able to remove executives (such as the CEO). The company is 'continuing to work through the specific governance mandate in consultation with relevant stakeholders,' he said. Sharpe also told me that OpenAI will remove the cap on shareholder returns, which he said will satisfy the conditions for SoftBank's billions of dollars in investment. A top SoftBank executive has said 'nothing has really changed' with OpenAI's restructure, despite the nonprofit retaining control. If investors are now satisfied, the underlying legal structure is irrelevant. Marc Toberoff, a lawyer representing Musk in his lawsuit against OpenAI, wrote in a statement that 'SoftBank pulled back the curtain on OpenAI's corporate theater and said the quiet part out loud. OpenAI's recent 'restructuring' proposal is nothing but window dressing.' Lessig, the lawyer who represented the former OpenAI employees, told me that 'it's outrageous that we are allowing the development of this potentially catastrophic technology with nobody at any level doing any effective oversight of it.' Two years ago, Altman, in Senate testimony, seemed to agree with that notion: He told lawmakers that 'regulatory intervention by governments will be critical to mitigate the risks' of powerful AI. But earlier this month, only a few days after writing to his employees and investors that 'as AI accelerates, our commitment to safety grows stronger,' he told the Senate something else: Too much regulation would be 'disastrous' for America's AI industry. Perhaps—but it might also be in the best interests of humanity. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Business Wire
14 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Nebius participates in ClickHouse Series C; crystallizes value of asset to fund hypergrowth of core AI infrastructure business
AMSTERDAM--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nebius Group ('Nebius' or 'the Group'; NASDAQ: NBIS), a leading AI infrastructure company, today confirmed its participation in ClickHouse's Series C funding round. Arkady Volozh, founder and CEO of Nebius, said: 'We are extremely impressed with what Aaron and his team have achieved to date, and believe they are well positioned to continue scaling rapidly and create significant additional value for shareholders. 'We believe our non-core assets will provide us with billions of dollars to invest in our core AI infrastructure business. We expect these non-core businesses to continue to grow significantly, and will look to utilize the stakes as funding sources over time for our core AI infrastructure business. 'This, combined with our access to global capital markets and strong cash position, puts us in a unique position in our sector. We plan to use all these options to support the hypergrowth of our core business, and to meet strong and growing demand. 'We have a clear plan to scale our business to multiple billions of dollars in revenue in the medium term, with strong and sustainable margins, and continue to execute on it successfully.' About Nebius Nebius is a technology company building full-stack infrastructure to service the explosive growth of the global AI industry, including large-scale GPU clusters, an AI-native cloud platform, and tools and services for developers. Headquartered in Amsterdam and listed on Nasdaq, the Company has a global footprint with R&D hubs across Europe, North America and Israel. Nebius Group's core business is an AI cloud platform built from the ground up for intensive AI workloads. With proprietary cloud software architecture and hardware designed in-house, Nebius gives AI builders the compute, storage, managed services and tools they need to build, tune and run their models. Nebius Group also operates additional businesses under their own distinctive brands: Avride — one of the most experienced teams developing autonomous driving technology for self-driving cars and delivery robots. TripleTen — a leading edtech player in the U.S. and certain other markets, re-skilling people for careers in tech; The Nebius Group also holds equity stakes in other businesses including ClickHouse and Toloka, an AI data solutions business. To learn more please visit Disclaimer Forward Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which involve risks and uncertainties. All statements contained in this press release other than statements of historical facts, including, without limitation, statements regarding the future prospects for our equity stakes, our future financial and business performance, our business and strategy, expected growth, planned investments and capital expenditure, capacity expansion plans, anticipated future financing transactions and expected financial results, are forward-looking statements. The words 'anticipate,' 'believe,' 'continue,' 'estimate,' 'expect,' 'guide,' 'intend,' 'likely,' 'may,' 'will' and similar expressions and their negatives are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions, some of which are beyond our control. Actual results may differ materially from the results predicted or implied by such statements, and our reported results should not be considered as an indication of future performance. The potential risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from the results predicted or implied by such statements include, among others: our ability to build our businesses to the desired scale, competitive pressures, technological developments, our ability to secure and retain clients, our ability to secure capital to accommodate the growth of the business, unpredictable sales cycles, potential pricing pressures, and the ability of companies in which we hold minority equity stakes to achieve their business goals, as well as those risks and uncertainties related to our continuing businesses included under the captions 'Risk Factors' and 'Operating and Financial Review and Prospects' in our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ('SEC') on April 30, 2025, which are available on our investor relations website at and on the SEC website at All information in this press release is as of May 30, 2025 (unless stated otherwise). Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date on which the statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. In addition, statements that 'we believe' and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this press release, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain, and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GMGI Insider Buying: Group CFO Picks Up 10,000 Shares
Las Vegas, Nevada--(Newsfile Corp. - May 30, 2025) - Golden Matrix Group Inc. (NASDAQ: GMGI), a global provider of iGaming and sportsbook technology, announced an insider purchase of 10,000 GMGI shares at $1.36 per share, as disclosed in a recent SEC Form 4 filing dated May 27, 2025. To view the full announcement, including downloadable images, bios, and more, click here. Key Takeaways: GMGI Insider buys 10,000 shares 25 GMGI insider purchases recorded in in the past year Argus Research reiterates Buy signal Click image above to view full announcement. About Golden Matrix Group (NASDAQ: GMGI)Golden Matrix Group Inc. develops and distributes proprietary gaming platforms, sports betting solutions, and promotional games across over 25 international markets. Its portfolio includes Meridianbet, Expanse Studios, GMAG, R Kings Competitions, and Classics for a Cause. Contacts: Milan Koricanac Source: Meridianbet Group To view the source version of this press release, please visit Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
