Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 504 posts

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#351

Post by alexb_ »

sharemywin wrote: post #324
xp84 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly stretches the bounds of reason for me that you could put a person in an isolation chamber with a powerful computer with no network connection, and after they type a few words into it, if the output of the computer has certain qualities, they are now a felon and the output is illegal to possess. But this seems like the world the “AI-regulators” seem to want.

you don't think it would be problematic for someone to create deep fake images of some ones kids in explicit sexual positions? I certainly think if the parents found out about it and the law wouldn't do anything about it the parents would take the law into their own hands. I'm sorry if this wasn't phrased very well. I just didn't know how else to make my point with out be very specific.

That's already illegal - you're using someone's image and likeness in a way they did not approve of.

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#352

Post by [deleted] »

sashank_1509 wrote: post #278
freediver wrote: post #252

claude-instant-v1 is one of the "best kept secrets". It is comperable in quality to gpt-3.5-turno, while being four times faster (!) and at half the price (!). We just released a minimal python library PyLLMs [1] to simplify using various LLMs (openai, anthropic, AI21..) and as a part of that we designed a LLM benchmark. All open source. [1] https://github.com/kagisearch/pyllms/tree/main#benchmarks

I have Claude on Slack. It is far worse than ChatGPT. I’m presuming this is not “claude-instant-v1” version, it is fast though. Any idea what version is Claude in Slack

[deleted]

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#353

Post by istjohn »

pixl97 wrote: post #155
itissid wrote: post #28

> billions of dollars over the next 18 months Is most of that money for hiring people to tag/label/comment on data and the data center costs?

Datacenter costs. With the models getting better the cost of data tagging is moving from a human dominated cost to a compute cost.

Interesting. The AI is already to the point that it can contribute to improving itself. That's...exciting? scary?

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#354

Post by horsawlarway »

mike_hearn wrote: post #346
horsawlarway wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's hard to see situations where the local approach beats out the cloud approach. I think the most glaring situation where this is true is simply one of trust and privacy. Cloud solutions involve trusting 3rd parties with data. Sometimes that fine, sometimes it's really not. Personally - LLMs start to feel more like they're sitting in the confidant/peer space in many ways. I behave differently when I know I'm…

People have trusted search engines with their most intimate questions for nearly 30 years and there has been what ... one? ... leak of query data during this time, and that was from AOL back when people didn't realize that you could sometimes de-anonymize anonymized datasets. It hasn't happened since. LLMs will require more than privacy to move locally. Latency, flexibility and cost seem more likely drivers.

You're still focused on trusting that my data is safe. And while I think that matters - I don't really think that's the trust I care most about.

I care more about the trust I have to place in the response from the model.

Hell - since you mentioned search... Just look at the backlash right now happening to google. They've sold out search (a while back, really) and people hate it. Ads used to be clearly delimited from search results, and the top results used to be organic instead of paid promos. At some point, that stopped being true.

At least with google search I could still tell that it was showing me ads. You won't have any fucking clue that OpenAI has entered into a partnering agreement with "company [whatever]" and has retrained the model that users on plans x/y/z interact with to make it more likely to push them towards their new partner [whatever]'s products when prompted with certain relevant contexts.

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#355

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

mike_hearn wrote: post #313
anentropic wrote: post #288

If Apple would wake up to what's happening with llama.cpp etc then I don't see such a market in paying for remote access to big models via API, though it's currently the only game in town. Currently a Macbook has a Neural Engine that is sitting idle 99% of the time and only suitable for running limited models (poorly documented, opaque rules about what ops can be accelerated, a black box compiler [1] and an apparent…

If I were Apple I'd be thinking about the following issues with that strategy: 1. That RAM isn't empty, it's being used by apps and the OS. Fill up 64GB of RAM with an LLM and there's nothing left for anything else. 2. 64GB probably isn't enough for competitive LLMs anyway. 3. Inferencing is extremely energy intensive, but the MacBook / Apple Silicon brand is partly about long battery life. 4. Weights are expensive t…

> 7. Apple already has all that stuff worked out for Siri, which is a cloud service, not a local service, even though it'd be easier to run locally than an LLM.

iOS actually does already have an offline speech-to-text api. Some part of Siri that translates the text into intents/actions is remote. Since iOS 15, Siri will also process a limited subset of commands while offline.

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#356

Post by visarga »

pyth0 wrote: post #241
visarga wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what I believe is also a toy model? chatGPT Turbo, you can tell by the speed of generation. And it works quite well, so small size is not an impediment. I expect there will be an open model on the level of chatGPT by the end of the year because suddenly there are lots of interested parties and investors. Eventually there will be a good enough model for most personal uses, our personal AI OS. When that happen…

> I expect there will be an open model on the level of chatGPT by the end of the year because suddenly there are lots of interested parties and investors. I really don't think you understand just how absurdly high the cost is to train models of this size (which we still don't know for sure anyways). I struggle to see what entity could afford to do this and release it as no cost. That doesn't even touch on the fact th…

Still cheaper than a plane, a ship or a power plant, and there are thousands of those.

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#357

Post by istjohn »

RamblingCTO wrote: post #286

Lol, "Therapy and coaching". None of you ever had undergone one therapy session. Otherwise you'd know that 90% is the human connection to the therapist, not the talking or the type of therapy.

My experience with therapy, corroborated with that of friends and family, is that most therapists are not very good and many are awful. I can easily imagine an AI therapist soon being more effective on average.

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#358

Post by qwertox »

OpenAI should allow its users to create personas. Oftentimes the verbosity it has drives me nuts, so I use stuff like "code only, nothing else: python json.dumps remove whitespace" in order to just get the code.

So I would like to create a chat with a pre-configured persona so that it behaves like this all the time, unless I explicitly tell it to be verbose or to explain it.

Or stop that offering of more help which becomes somewhat bothering: "Yes, I'm glad we were able to work through the issue and find a solution that works for you. Do you have any other questions or concerns on this topic or any other networking-related topic?"

Like custom "system" prompts, but checked for safety. Or maybe even on a per-message basis with a drop-down next to the submit button and then it stays at that until changed.

Then there's also the need to be able to switch from a GPT-3.5 chat to GPT-4, just like it offers to downgrade from GPT-4 to 3.5 once the "quota" is consumed. Because oftentimes GPT-3.5 is good enough for most of the chat, and only certain questions should then offer the capabilities of GPT-4. This would also allow us to save energy.

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#359

Post by dreish »

qwertox wrote: post #358

OpenAI should allow its users to create personas. Oftentimes the verbosity it has drives me nuts, so I use stuff like "code only, nothing else: python json.dumps remove whitespace" in order to just get the code. So I would like to create a chat with a pre-configured persona so that it behaves like this all the time, unless I explicitly tell it to be verbose or to explain it. Or stop that offering of more help which b…

You can already do that with OpenCharacters at https://josephrocca.github.io/OpenCharacters/. You just need to set up an API key with OpenAI, and you can customize hidden prompts for different characters, whom you can name, you can edit earlier parts of conversations, and it automatically summarizes earlier parts of conversations to keep a never-ending thread within the context limit.

Re: Anthropic’s $5B, 4-year plan to take on OpenAI

#360

Post by [deleted] »

anentropic wrote: post #288

If Apple would wake up to what's happening with llama.cpp etc then I don't see such a market in paying for remote access to big models via API, though it's currently the only game in town. Currently a Macbook has a Neural Engine that is sitting idle 99% of the time and only suitable for running limited models (poorly documented, opaque rules about what ops can be accelerated, a black box compiler [1] and an apparent…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN