Live data from Hacker News

Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

semianalysis.com

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#81
The part of the post that resonates for me is that working with the open source community may allow a model to improve faster. And, whichever model improves faster, will win - if it can continue that pace of improvement.

The author talks about Koala but notes that ChatGPT is better. GPT-4 is then significantly better than GPT-3.5. If you've used all the models and can afford to spend money, you'd be insane to not use GPT-4 over all the other models.

Midjourney is more popular (from what I'm seeing) than Stable Diffusion at the moment because it's better at the moment. Midjourney is closed-source.

The point I'm wanting to make is that users will go to whoever has the best model. So, the winning strategy is whatever strategy allows your model to compound in quality faster and to continue to compound that growth in quality for longer.

Open source doesn't always win in producing better quality products.

Linux won in servers and supercomputing, but not in end user computing.

Open-source databases mostly won.

Chromium sorta won, but really Chrome.

Then in most other areas, closed-source has won.

So one takeaway might be that open-source will win in areas where the users are often software developers that can make improvements to the product they're using, and closed-source will win in other areas.

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#82

Having enough scale to perpetually offer free/low-cost compute is a moat. The primary reason ChatGPT went viral in the first place was because it was free, with no restrictions. Back in 2019, GPT-2 1.5B was made freely accessible by a single developer via the TalkToTransformers website, which was the very first time many people talking about AI text generation...then the owner got hit with sticker shock from the GPU…

Charity is only a moat if it’s not profitable.

In other words, engage in anti-competitive behavior.

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#83
Some snippets for folks who come just for the comments:

> While our models still hold a slight edge in terms of quality, the gap is closing astonishingly quickly. Open-source models are faster, more customizable, more private, and pound-for-pound more capable. They are doing things with $100 and 13B params that we struggle with at $10M and 540B. And they are doing so in weeks, not months.

> A tremendous outpouring of innovation followed, with just days between major developments (see The Timeline for the full breakdown). Here we are, barely a month later, and there are variants with instruction tuning, quantization, quality improvements, human evals, multimodality, RLHF, etc. etc. many of which build on each other.

> This recent progress has direct, immediate implications for our business strategy. Who would pay for a Google product with usage restrictions if there is a free, high quality alternative without them?

> Paradoxically, the one clear winner in all of this is Meta. Because the leaked model was theirs, they have effectively garnered an entire planet’s worth of free labor. Since most open source innovation is happening on top of their architecture, there is nothing stopping them from directly incorporating it into their products.

> And in the end, OpenAI doesn’t matter. They are making the same mistakes we are in their posture relative to open source, and their ability to maintain an edge is necessarily in question. Open source alternatives can and will eventually eclipse them unless they change their stance. In this respect, at least, we can make the first move.

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#84
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charity is only a moat if it’s not profitable.

It seems the plan is to be a loss leader until scale is sufficient to reach near AGI levels of capability.

There was some indication recently that OpenAI was spending over $500k/day to keep it running. Not sure how long thats going to last. AGI is still a pipe dream. Sooner or later , they’re going to have to make money.

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#85
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers recognizing ChatGPT might just end up like vacuum cleaners; at least in the UK, people will often just call it a "hoover" but the likelihood of it being a Hoover is low. It is difficult to see where the moat might exist if it's not data and the majority of the workings are published / discoverable. I don't think the document identifies a readily working strategy to defend against the threats it recognises.

> end up like vacuum cleaners The term of art is Generic Trademark https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark In US common law (and I'd imagine UK too), it's usually something companies want to avoid if at all possible. Relevant case for Google itself: https://www.intepat.com/blog/is-google-a-generic-trademark/

See also the “Don’t Say Velcro” [1] campaign from the eponymous hook and loop fastener company.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZY

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#86
This is easily among the rare highest quality articles/comments I've read in the past weeks, perhaps months (on LLMs/AI since that's what I am particularly interested in). And this was for internal consumption before it was made public. Reinforces my recent impression that so much that's being made for public consumption now is shallow and it is hard to find the good stuff. And sadly, increasing so even on HN. As I write this, I acknowledge I discovered this on HN :) Wish we had ways to incentivize the public sharing of such high-quality content that don't die at the altar of micro rewards.

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#87

Google's moat is its data set. Imagine training an generative AI LLM on the entire set of YouTube training videos. No one else has this.

The entire set of YouTube training videos needs to be re-transcribed before they are useful for training LLMs.

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#88
post #66
post #45

This looks very fake to me. I might be wrong. Yet, there is no "document" that was leaked, the original source is some blog post. If there is a document, share the document. Shared by "anonymous individual on discord who granted permission for republication"... I don't know. If it was shared by anonymous, why ask for permission? Which discord server?

Did you read it? I honestly don't care if it's really a leak from inside Google or not: I think the analysis stands on its own. It's a genuinely insightful summary of the last few months of activity in open source models, and makes a very compelling argument as to the strategic impact those will have on the incumbent LLM providers. I don't think it's a leak though, purely because I have trouble imagining anyone writi…

> It's a genuinely insightful summary of the last few months of activity in open source models

Yes this is an amazing summary! Just for its summary alone, it is probably one of the top five writings I saw on LLMs and I read every one!

> because I have trouble imagining anyone writing something this good and deciding NOT to take credit for the analysis themselves.

Not everyone has a substack that they spam onto hacker news every time a thought enter their head. Or imagine that INTP exist. In my opinion the best take ever on LLMs is the simulators essay https://generative.ink/posts/simulators/ and the author is so shy they went pseudonymous and put their twitter as private and don't even want their name in conferences.

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#89

FWIW I posted Simon's summary because it's what I encountered first, but here's the leaked document itself[0]. Some snippets for folks who came just for the comments: > While our models still hold a slight edge in terms of quality, the gap is closing astonishingly quickly. Open-source models are faster, more customizable, more private, and pound-for-pound more capable. They are doing things with $100 and 13B params t…

Seems to be the Open Source who is the real winner overall.. After OpenAI became basically ClosedAI it's an excellent news

Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”

#90
I would lean towards agreeing. And I definitely think AI companies should not try to make their money on inference.

If there is a well performing model being deployed it is possible to train a similar model while not having to eat the cost of exploration. Ie. it is only the the cost of training said model.

ChatGPT would probably die in a couple of weeks, if an equivalent, free, product came out that people could run on their computers.

Post reply on HN