Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

semafor.com

331–340 of 541 posts

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#331
I don't want to see OpenAI absorbed into the mothership. I feel like Sam and his team thrive under a lack of "parental guidance" and we might lose some of the innovation once you have 38 department heads telling you yes or no for every idea.

That, and everything getting moved behind closed doors (much like all of Google's AI work).

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible, maybe, that it's not "some stupid people" with "much importance" - but actually the average person doesn't want technology to vocally support neo-nazis? To be honest I don't really care either way (at least in this case), but I see people making this argument always act like it's a few elites ruining the world and it's impossible that the average person doesn't 100% agree with them.

Why does it always jump straight to white supremacy and Neo-Nazism? There's a lot of area in there that is being ignored and/or casually dismissed. It's not an honest discussion.

Maybe the people involved are not old enough to ever have heard about Godwin's law? Its now 25 years ago that UseNet users have discovered this. I guess HN still needs a few years to get there.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#333
post #121

Does anybody else have the feeling "Microsoft is back"? With GitHub and OpenAI the have put their finger on two pretty significant new projects. What new things has Google come up with over the last 5 years?

A) Microsoft never went away. They did not stop being a monster monopoly or a top-level research and tools company.

B) Microsoft did not create GitHub or OpenAI.

C) Both Google and Microsoft have many significant research and development outcomes and acquisitions over the last five years.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#334
post #256

Question to AI/ML folks : Is there no comparable open source model? Is the future going to be controlled by big corporations who own the models themselves? If models are so computationally intensive to produce does it mean than the more computational power a company has the better its models will be?

The closest open source contender is BLOOM: https://huggingface.co/bigscience/bloom . It has an almost identical architecture to GPT-3 (hence, to ChatGPT), and in particular the same number of parameters (175B). It was also trained on a similar amount of data, as far as we can know. Still, it's not like you can just "download it and run it", even just to _load_ the model into memory you need ~400GB of memory, to run…

In terms of quality, I think BLOOMZ, or mT0, are the best open-source ones.

The non-finetuned BLOOM does not appear favorably (in English) compared to GLM or OPT, which both have published weights: https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/v0.1.0/?group=mmlu and Flan-T5 is above OPT-IML: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.12017.pdf

> Is the future going to be controlled by big corporations who own the models themselves?

On this subject, there is an effort stemming from BigScience to build an open, distributed inference network, so that people that don’t have enough GPUs at home can contribute theirs and get text generation at one word per second: https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/petals#how-does-it-wo...

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#336

Question to AI/ML folks : Is there no comparable open source model? Is the future going to be controlled by big corporations who own the models themselves? If models are so computationally intensive to produce does it mean than the more computational power a company has the better its models will be?

It is quite outrageous that despite the fact that nearly the entire tech world is built on FOSS, Open Source still doesn't get the recognition it deserves from governments.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#337
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it always jump straight to white supremacy and Neo-Nazism? There's a lot of area in there that is being ignored and/or casually dismissed. It's not an honest discussion.

Maybe the people involved are not old enough to ever have heard about Godwin's law? Its now 25 years ago that UseNet users have discovered this. I guess HN still needs a few years to get there.

Unfortunately, it seems commenters like "lynx23" haven't yet reached the age of reading the entire comment chain before writing a comment. Maybe then they'd realize the Nazi example was actually brought up by the comment two posts above me and I was just rolling with it as that's the current example in the discussion.

I guess they still need a few years to get there.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#339

I'm seeing a lot of responses that see ChatGPT replacing Google, and it's unclear to me how? It can replace queries like "what's the tallest mountain in France", but that's not really a profitable query for Google. Whereas it's unclear to me how it replaces "best vegetarian restaurants in Gastown". It can string together a coherent statement, but then I have to go search to see whether it actually recommended vegetar…

"best vegetarian restaurants in Gastown": the results actually seemed pretty good: The Acorn The Naam Chau Veggie Express The Essential The Wilder Snail I mean, yeah, it doesn't cite sources. So if you want to check the results you have to do that with a traditional search engine. But that will only be an issue while the results aren't good enough to trust by default.

Those are terrible results. None of them are in (and most of them aren't even near) Gastown, one doesn't exist, one isn't a restaurant or vegetarian.

- The Acorn: Not in Gastown. In South Main.

- The Naam: Not in Gastown. In Kitsilano.

- Chau Veggie Express: Not in Gastown. In Granville Island.

- The Essential: Doesn't exist.

- The Wilder Snail: Not a restaurant, not vegetarian, not in Gastown. In Japantown, which is at least walkable from Gastown.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's still crazy that in 2022 the fact that some stupid people can be offended by that have that much importance.

Is it possible, maybe, that it's not "some stupid people" with "much importance" - but actually the average person doesn't want technology to vocally support neo-nazis? To be honest I don't really care either way (at least in this case), but I see people making this argument always act like it's a few elites ruining the world and it's impossible that the average person doesn't 100% agree with them.

A computer keyboard allows a person to type the contents of a pro-democracy speech even if you're in China and the government wouldn't want you to be able to, a telephone would have allowed the famously gay, famously chemically castrated Alan Turing to make a phone call to make proclamations of love to another man he loved despite the British government frowning upon such a thing, a ship would take the passengers of a ship of fleeing Jews to leave Europe and go elsewhere prior to the Holocaust even if Hitler would have liked to see them all in Auschwitz.

When we suddenly decide to give our tools the power to refuse us, based on some whim of those with power in society, we'd best be prepared for when it turns out we signed off on some great evils.

Post reply on HN