Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#471

Post by Der_Einzige » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:36 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #460

Der_Einzige wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAANG engineers usually publish their research in top NLP conferences ran by the ACL, which forces all published papers to have a permissive license and highly incentives people to contribute code along with the paper for reproducibility reasons. You don't know what you're talking about. OpenAI has done a lot of self publishing/arxiv to avoid getting slammed in peer review by the fact that none of what they have is o…

> what they have is open source How is https://github.com/openai/whisper not open source?

That's the only thing they open sourced. Also not NLP. That's speech to text.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#472

Post by seydor » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:41 PM UTC

Der_Einzige wrote: post #442

seydor wrote: post #273

Does MS think they have a big moat in these? It won't be long until we have an open version , and although they need a lot of compute , maybe in 1-2 years they ll have come down in size enough to be usable. Is it the training data?

Ya but how long will it be before I have 400GB of VRAM on a single GPU? Until then, I can't run these models at home even if the weights were published.

there is already work to reduce the size of these LLMs and it can only get better from now on

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#473

Post by college_physics » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:41 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #336

la64710 wrote: post #153

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.

Despite its recognition in techie circles open source is largely unknown in both corporate and government environments and there is probably a significant operational gap to overcome as these entities have very rigid rules of engagement.

Among others, they generally dont think for themselves. The picture could change significantly if the various intermediaries, consultants etc who live off these ecosystems found ways to make open source profitable for them

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#474

Post by ilaksh » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:41 PM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #320

danShumway wrote: post #304

This is just one of the many reasons why I don't think I'm as concerned about AI models as people around me are, either for art, text, or coding. These technologies today are highly subsidized because the people making them want to create a lot of buzz. Yes, as they mature they're going to get better; but I also suspect they're going to become more limited, harder to use, more narrowly targeted, and more expensive to…

It's so weird to me that people don't know that text-davinci-003 and code-davinci-003 exist. OpenAI models available via API and very similar to ChatGPT output in many cases. Also text-davinci-003 was released in a similar time period. It seems very affordable to me as a startup. I have already coded most of the credits system. https://aidev.codes

Typo: code-davinci-003 does not exist. 002 does

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#475

Post by zdragnar » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:43 PM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #469

World177 wrote: post #377

> Additionally, a structure with the ownership of OpenAI would be put in place. Microsoft would entail a 49 percent stake while other investors would take over the other 49 percent. The remaining 2 percent will reportedly go to OpenAI’s non-profit parent firm. When OpenAI was funded as a non-profit in 2015, it raised $1 billion from investors that included YC Research. [1] Sam Altman was also the former president of…

OpenAI has a very, very complicated ownership structure. They explicitly call this a "capped profit corporation". What this means in practice is that they have a non-profit arm that owns a for-profit arm, and the for-profit arm has some vague and laughably high "profit cap" to meet. Personally, it sounds like a really sketchy way to work around privacy and copyright concerns. I.e. "we're just doing non-profit researc…

That sounds a lot like the structure of the Mozilla Foundation (the non profit part) and the Mozilla Corporation (the for profit part that runs firefox, iirc).

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#476

Post by metadat » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:49 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #470

Saw this article earlier this week that might interest the people on this thread: "Claude: The first ChatGPT competitor has arrived" https://mpost.io/claude-the-first-chatgpt-competitor-has-arr...

Nice find, I hope you don't mind my submitting it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34331396

Definitely excited to try out any competition to ChatGPT.

Edit: I found an even better article which goes more in-depth, https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/09/anthropics-claude-improves...

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#477

Post by rurp » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:50 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #304

This is just one of the many reasons why I don't think I'm as concerned about AI models as people around me are, either for art, text, or coding. These technologies today are highly subsidized because the people making them want to create a lot of buzz. Yes, as they mature they're going to get better; but I also suspect they're going to become more limited, harder to use, more narrowly targeted, and more expensive to…

I think you're right that these models will soon be aggressively locked down and monetized, but I'm still pretty nervous about them. The dynamic of powerful but inaccessible tools is going to lead to a lot more inequality. If AI does start to create a large amount of business value, that value will be almost entirely captured by the wealthiest companies and individuals, and will further cement existing moats.

There's a good chance that these tools will be of limited use to individual creators while being very useful in certain capacities for the Microsoft's of the world. If these companies need to choose between making the world a better place or increasing quarterly profits by a notable amount, I don't think there's much question what they will choose.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#478

Post by 98codes » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:52 PM UTC

cmelbye wrote: post #406

asdff wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he should start with standardizing his charger

They are doing that: https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...

I feel like they must've had the relevant XKCD* framed somewhere when they came up with that plan.

* https://xkcd.com/927/

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#479

Post by choppaface » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:53 PM UTC

World177 wrote: post #377

> Additionally, a structure with the ownership of OpenAI would be put in place. Microsoft would entail a 49 percent stake while other investors would take over the other 49 percent. The remaining 2 percent will reportedly go to OpenAI’s non-profit parent firm. When OpenAI was funded as a non-profit in 2015, it raised $1 billion from investors that included YC Research. [1] Sam Altman was also the former president of…

Reminder that Deepmind went for a mere $500m

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2699555/google-acquire...

A big up round like this during a recession provides a very useful lens to see how OpenAI is bargaining here.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#480

Post by loa_in_ » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 8:55 PM UTC

mshake2 wrote: post #447

MichaelBurge wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT wasn't trained on text that talks about its own build process, source code, Github repos, etc. so it doesn't know any more than you and any such answers would be hallucinations.

I can't wait for the inevitable lawsuits that will result when this technology is white-labeled and misrepresents the business to customers or investors.

> I can't wait for the inevitable lawsuits

But there's no ill intent. As long as it's not labeled as human. I guess it applies to everything, even sentient AIs, that it's fair as long as they don't promise services of a human.