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

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

semianalysis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

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

#151

Post by ilyt »

tikkun wrote: post #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…

> 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.

Best only works till second best is "close enough" and cheaper/free

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

#152

Post by happycube »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #107
tikkun wrote: post #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…

GPT4 sucks for many use cases because it's SLOW. It will co-exist with ChatGPT variants.

And far more expensive than ChatGPT via API, so it makes sense to use ChatGPT3.5, or the locally run equivalents once they get as good, as much as possible.

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

#153

Post by whimsicalism »

crazygringo wrote: post #145
whimsicalism wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you feel like your criteria for quality is beyond what you can typically find in the popular public consumption, just start reading papers directly?

The value in this article is the business strategy perspective, not the details of LLM's. You generally won't find papers detailing the present-moment business strategies of specific for-profit corporations.

Sure but this article is also not the present-moment business strategy, it is written by a single individual with a perspective.

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

#154

Post by Spivak »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #131
hospitalJail wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Midjourney is easier, its not better. The low barrier to entry has it popular, but it isnt as realistic, doesnt follow the prompt as well, and has almost no customization. SD is the holy grail of AI art, if you can afford a computer or server to run SD + have the abili…

> Midjourney is easier, its not better Does being easier not influence whether it's better? I mean this in that for many of the ways AI art would be used, MJ already seems to be "good enough" at a lot of it. Secondarily: doesn't Midjourney's increased user base and increased ratings they get from users help it refine its model, thus meaning that "ease of use" creates a feedback loop with "quality of output" because m…

> Does being easier not influence whether it's better

Midjourney let's you type in a thing and get a result that will look great, which is no small accomplishment. If you want "incidental art" like blog post heros there is no competition. But it's really hard to use if you want to get exactly what you want.

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

#155

Post by robinsord »

hospitalJail wrote: post #102
tikkun wrote: post #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…

>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. Midjourney is easier, its not better. The low barrier to entry has it popular, but it isnt as realistic, doesnt follow the prompt as well, and has almost no customization. SD is the holy grail of AI art, if you can afford a computer or server to run SD + have the abili…

[dead]

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

#156

Post by seydor »

Not only they have no moat, Open source models are uncensored and this is huge. Censorship is not just political , it cripples the product to basically an infantile stage and precludes so many applications. For once, it is a liability

But this article doesn't state the very obvious: When will google (the inventor of Transformer, and "rightful" godfather of modern LLMs) , release a full open source, tinkerable model better than LLaMa?

(To the dead comment below, there are many uncensored variations of vicuna)

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

#157

Post by enlyth »

ketzo wrote: post #120
hospitalJail wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Midjourney is easier, its not better. The low barrier to entry has it popular, but it isnt as realistic, doesnt follow the prompt as well, and has almost no customization. SD is the holy grail of AI art, if you can afford a computer or server to run SD + have the abili…

Do you have a link to a decent tutorial for someone to do what you're describing in the last paragraph?

https://rentry.org/sdg-link

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

#158

Post by a-user-you-like »

api wrote: post #126

This has been my speculation about the people pushing for regulation in this space: it’s an attempt at regulatory capture because there really is little moat with this tech. I can already run GPT-3 comparable models on a MacBook Pro. GPT-4 level models that can run on at least higher end commodity hardware seem close. Models trained on data scraped from the net may not be defensible via copyright and they certainly a…

Act like a socialist and then blame it on capitalism, American playbook 101

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

#159

Post by tehjoker »

This is likely the reason for the propaganda push about delaying AI research 6 months, which makes no sense for the stated reasons (it's far too short even if you take the scare tactic seriously). However, it may be enough time to delay the competition and consolidate product lines.

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

#160

Post by burnished »

ChaitanyaSai wrote: post #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 w…

Most of it is being written to make money off of you instead of communicate with you and it shows.
Post reply on HN