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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by TeMPOraL »

taneq wrote: post #487
TeMPOraL wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I can't see Google failing here. Like other tech giants, they're sitting on a ridiculously large war chest. Worst case, they can wait for the space to settle a bit and spend a few billion to buy the market leader. If AI really is an existential threat to their business prospects, spending their reserves on this is a no-brainer.

The threat isn’t that another company has AI, it’s that they don’t (yet) have a good way to sell ads with a chat bot. Buying the chat bot doesn’t change that.

What I mean is, if they can't figure out the ad angle and end up facing an existential threat, they have enough money to just drop their existing ad business almost entirely, and buy out the leading AI company to integrate as a replacement business model. It would be bloody (in the business sense, at least), but Google would likely survive such drastic move.

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

#512

Post by computerex »

yieldcrv wrote: post #483
narrator wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with AI being everywhere and ubiquitous is that AI is the first technology in a very long time that requires non-trivial compute power. That compute power costs money. This is why you only get a limited number of messages every few hours from GPT4. It simply costs too much to be a ubiquitous technology. For example, the biggest LLama model only runs on an A100 that costs about $15,000 on ebay. The…

nah, Lora quantized LLM’s are going to be at the OS level in 2 years and consumer architecture refreshes are just going to extend more RAM to already existing dedicated chips like Neural Engine client side tokens per second will be through the roof and the models will be smaller

LoRa is not a quantization method, it's a fine tuning method.

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

#513

Post by computerex »

aero-deck wrote: post #426
dahwolf wrote: post #389

The current paradigm is that AI is a destination. A product you go to and interact with. That's not at all how the masses are going to interact with AI in the near future. It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. In Office/Google docs, at the operating system level (Android), in your graphics editor (Adobe), on major web platforms: search, image search, Youtube, the like. Since Google and other…

Disagree. What you have in mind is already how the masses interact AI. There is little value-add for making machine translation, auto-correct and video recommendations better. I can think of a myriad of use-cases for AI that involve custom-tuning foundation models to user-specific environments. Think of an app that can detect bad dog behavior, or an app that gives you pointers on your golf swing. The moat for AI is g…

Fine tuning isn't a thing for foundational models though, it's all about in context learning.

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

#514

Post by duderific »

titzer wrote: post #419
dahwolf wrote: post #389

The current paradigm is that AI is a destination. A product you go to and interact with. That's not at all how the masses are going to interact with AI in the near future. It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. In Office/Google docs, at the operating system level (Android), in your graphics editor (Adobe), on major web platforms: search, image search, Youtube, the like. Since Google and other…

> It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. I...kinda don't want this? UIs have already changed in so many different fits, starts, waves, and cycles. I used to have skills. But I have no skills now. Nothing works like it used to. Yeah they were tricky to use but I cannot imagine that a murky AI interface is going to be any easier to use, and certainly impossible to master. Even if it is easier t…

If it is seamlessly integrated, the AI won't even surface in a UI. You will just be presented with different options in the UI, which theoretically would be more precisely curated by the AI that you don't even see.

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

#515

Post by computerex »

mirekrusin wrote: post #142
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…

If you think you can use GPT-4 then you don't know what you're talking about. API access is on waitlist. UI has limit of 25 messages in 3 hours. If you think big, known companies can get ahead of the waitlist and use it - short answer is no, they can't because of their IP. Nobody is going to sign off leaking out all internal knowledge to play with something. ClosedAI seems to have big problem with capacity. Those poe…

We have gpt-4 deployed to production being used by fortune 100 labels.

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

#517

Post by ChatGTP »

Certhas wrote: post #408
narrator wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with AI being everywhere and ubiquitous is that AI is the first technology in a very long time that requires non-trivial compute power. That compute power costs money. This is why you only get a limited number of messages every few hours from GPT4. It simply costs too much to be a ubiquitous technology. For example, the biggest LLama model only runs on an A100 that costs about $15,000 on ebay. The…

The article talks about this explicitly though. Reasonably good models are running on raspberry Pis now.

Is a reasonably good model what people get value out of though?

Maybe this is why Sam Altman talked about "the end of the large LLMs is here"? He understands anything bigger than ChatGPT-4 isn't viable to run at scale and be profitable?

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

#518

Post by bombolo »

titzer wrote: post #419
dahwolf wrote: post #389

The current paradigm is that AI is a destination. A product you go to and interact with. That's not at all how the masses are going to interact with AI in the near future. It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. In Office/Google docs, at the operating system level (Android), in your graphics editor (Adobe), on major web platforms: search, image search, Youtube, the like. Since Google and other…

> It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. I...kinda don't want this? UIs have already changed in so many different fits, starts, waves, and cycles. I used to have skills. But I have no skills now. Nothing works like it used to. Yeah they were tricky to use but I cannot imagine that a murky AI interface is going to be any easier to use, and certainly impossible to master. Even if it is easier t…

shell is the same

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

#519

Post by brimwats »

Taek wrote: post #490
narrator wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with AI being everywhere and ubiquitous is that AI is the first technology in a very long time that requires non-trivial compute power. That compute power costs money. This is why you only get a limited number of messages every few hours from GPT4. It simply costs too much to be a ubiquitous technology. For example, the biggest LLama model only runs on an A100 that costs about $15,000 on ebay. The…

The biggest llama model has near 100% fidelity (its like 99.3%) at 4 bit quantization, which allows it to fit on any 40GB or 48GB GPU, which you can get for $3500. Or at about a 10x speed reduction you can run it on 128 GB of RAM for only around $250. The story is not anywhere near as bleak as you paint.

I haven't seen any repos or guides to using llama on that level of RAM, which is something I do have. any pointers?

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

#520

Post by rektide »

quijoteuniv wrote: post #375
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…

This is what happened with kubernetes no? Open source was about to take over so google release the code not to loose out.

Worthy to note, it seems like there were some incredibly dedicated hardworking engineers that drove extremely hard for a really long time to make this happen.

They did manage to get large buy in from the company after quite a significant journey. But it seems so much like a kind of outside event, something begat & pushed for not because it was a smart top down move, but because a couple super driven engineers made it their cause.

Post reply on HN