801–810 of 1000 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but what value does ChatGPT give back to these primary sources? The dissemination of their thoughts and ideas.
With no attribution or way to discover the source. That's great for propagandists but maybe less great for everyone else.
I asked google "is cancer a metabolic disease" and it confidently said it was. I asked it "is cancer a genetic disease" and it confidently said it was. These are completely opposite theories of cancer.
Look at the bright side, ChatGPT does the same. I don't think we've a clarity as humans whether cancer is a genetic or metabolic disease how do you think an AI, that's generated based on human knowledge, could possibly be better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OpenAI has had huge mindshare with students recently. Clubhouse was once the new hotness - until it wasn't.
Clubhouse wasn't popular with kids. It was popular, and only briefly, with adult tech people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think most people realize how much infrastructure separates something like ChatGPT from Google-scale deployment. OpenAI isn't suddenly building transoceanic fiber and datacenters near most major population centers. They aren't signing production-ready contract vehicles with most major OEMs and governments. And in the gap it would take a new entrant to acquire 10% of those assets, Google has 100,000 engineers…
You are missing the Microsoft partnership. MS has a 48% stake in OpenAI and provides all the infrastructure through Azure, including purpose built machines for model training. Microsoft has also launched GitHub Copilot, summarization features in Teams, and is widely reported to be adding GPT features to Bing.
Src: https://labs.kagi.com/ai/sum?url=https://blog.google/technol...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at the bright side, ChatGPT does the same. I don't think we've a clarity as humans whether cancer is a genetic or metabolic disease how do you think an AI, that's generated based on human knowledge, could possibly be better?
Not for me, ChatGPT says no to both questions (and adds some details). I'm on the Jan 30 version, though -- maybe you're on an older version?
Depends on your interpretation it can be both yes or both no.
In any case, that's not the point. The point is that we as humans don't have clarity on cancer either how can AI be any better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point about the economics of running these models is an important one that slides under the radar a lot of times. The training costs for large language models like GPT are enormous, and the inference costs are substantial too. Right now things like ChatGPT are very cool parlor tricks, but there's absolutely no way to justify them in terms of the economics of running the service today. Obviously this is all going…
GLM-130B[1] is something comparable to GPT-3. It's a 130billion parameter model vs GPT-3's 175 billion, and it can comfortably run on current-gen high end consumer level hardware. A system with 4 RTX 3090s ( The proverbial 'some guy on Twitter'[2] got it setup, and broke down the costs, demonstrated some prompts, and what not. The output's pretty terrible, but it's unclear to me whether that's inherent or a result of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that people start using those chat bots massively as a replacement for Google search. Then the notion of keyword disappears. Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant. Of course, Google is a giant today with a history of machine learning innovation. So they have a good c…
The point about the economics of running these models is an important one that slides under the radar a lot of times. The training costs for large language models like GPT are enormous, and the inference costs are substantial too. Right now things like ChatGPT are very cool parlor tricks, but there's absolutely no way to justify them in terms of the economics of running the service today. Obviously this is all going…
2- Moore’s Laws
3- Algorithm/architecture improvement
I’m curious to hear why Google isn’t going to win in this AI arms race. The way I see it, Google: * is effectively the gateway to the internet, owning the most popular website in the world, mobile OS, and browser * has infinite LIVE data, both unstructured and structured (knowledge graph) * has infinite compute resources * employs the world’s best AI scientists and invests heavily in AI * has decade(s) of experience…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that people start using those chat bots massively as a replacement for Google search. Then the notion of keyword disappears. Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant. Of course, Google is a giant today with a history of machine learning innovation. So they have a good c…
I think this is the same type of thinking that people had when they think technology will "steal" jobs, when in reality we have lower and lower unemployment as time goes on. Most likely this will not actually happen, and even if it did your content would still be valuable as an AI is analyzing it in a more nuanced way than just looking for keywords. Which, by the way, is exactly what search engines do.