Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI” • Hacker News Board

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

#551

Post by CuriouslyC » Fri, May 05, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #409

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…

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.

They won't fail, they'll just provide compute infrastructure for people building AI products. Google is mostly bad at building products these days.

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

#552

Post by jimmySixDOF » Fri, May 05, 2023, 2:38 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #430

titzer wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

An AI interface in Office brings back memories of Clippy.

XR will solve the AI UI problem

https://twitter.com/jasminezroberts/status/16056114516740259...

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

#553

Post by cavisne » Fri, May 05, 2023, 2:45 AM UTC

The author makes some good points but I would be wary of the motivations.

Open AI's "moat" is they have got ~400 researchers to work in roughly the same direction, not working on their own projects with the sole aim of publishing a paper. The outcome is an amazing product.

Letting everyone loose with their own LoRa finetuned model that can beat a single benchmark (and make for a great paper!) is probably the wrong move. I'm yet to see any open source model that is even close to GPT 3 (let alone GPT 4) in actual real world use.

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

#554

Post by artdigital » Fri, May 05, 2023, 2:47 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #384

reissbaker wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT-4 is so much better for complex tasks that I wouldn't use anything else. Trying to get 3.5 to do anything complicated is like pulling teeth, and using something worse than 3.5... Oof. TBH this feels like cope from Google; Bard is embarrassingly bad and they expected to be able to compete with OpenAI. In my experience, despite their graph in the article that puts them ahead of Vicuna-13B, they're actually behind..…

Yes, I'd readily pay for GPT-4 access, though not the limited 25 requests per 3 hours version. I ponied up $20 for a month of usage to check it out, and it performs head & shoulders above 3.5 in its ability to comprehensively address more complex prompts and provide output that is more nuanced than ChatGPT. I'll also point out that paid api access to 3.5 (davinci-03) is frequently better than ChatGPT's use of 3.5. Yo…

> I'll also point out that paid api access to 3.5 (davinci-03) is frequently better than ChatGPT's use of 3.5. You get many fewer restrictions, and none the "awe shucks, I'm just a little 'ol LLM and so I couldn't possibly answer that".

Little correction - 3.5 is not davinci. davinci is 3.0, 3.5-turbo (chatgpt) is a davinci variant that has been tuned and adjusted for chatting and conversation, including all those restrictions. It is much faster than davinci, way cheaper but as you know, results are… ok

davinci (3.0) is more untuned, slower, more expensive to use, not conversational, but can yield much better quality

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

#555

Post by kistaro » Fri, May 05, 2023, 3:00 AM UTC

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #522

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…

"Any winning idea ported into Google's products on short notice." Imagine for a moment, in a different universe, in a different galaxy, another planet is ostensibly a mirror image of Earth, evolving along the same trajectory. However on this hypothetical planet, anything is possible . This has resulted in some interesting differences. The No Google License Neither Google, its subsidiaries, business partners nor its a…

The No Google License functionally exists: it's the AGPL. https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

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

#556

Post by agnosticmantis » Fri, May 05, 2023, 3:08 AM UTC

This reads like a very research-oriented point of view, and a very myopic one at that.

The knowledge and the infra needed to serve these huge models to billions of users reliably seems to me to be a pretty serious moat here that no current open source project can compete with.

Coming up with ideas and training new models is one thing, actually serving those models at scale efficiently and monetizing it at the same time is a different ballgame.

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

#557

Post by newswasboring » Fri, May 05, 2023, 3:09 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #542

newswasboring wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This so-called "competition" from open source is going to be free labor. Any winning idea ported into Google's products on short notice. Thanks open source! How else, exactly, is open source supposed to work? Nobody wants to make their code GPL but everybody complains when companies use their code. I get that open source projects will like companies to contribute back, but shouldn't that go for everyone using this…

Developers nowadays want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to develop FOSS code because capitalism is evil and proprietary software is immoral and Micro$oft is the devil, man , and so give their work away for free... but whenever a company makes money on it and gives nothing back, completely in line with the letter and spirit of FOSS (because requiring compensation would violate user freedom,) they also wa…

I see this as part of the decline of hacker culture and rise of brogrammers. I see very few people programming for fun, everyone seems to be looking for a monetization opportunity for every breath they take.

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

#558

Post by pavelstoev » Fri, May 05, 2023, 3:10 AM UTC

narrator wrote: post #396

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…

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…

Or you can apply GPU optimizations for such ML workloads. By optimizing the way these models run on GPUs, significantly improve efficiency and slash costs by a factor of 10 or even more. These techniques include kernel fusion, memory access optimization, and efficient use of GPU resources, which can lead to substantial improvements in both training and inference speed. This allows AI models to run on more affordable hardware and still deliver exceptional performance. For example, LLMs running on A100 can also run on 3090s with no change in accuracy and comparable inference latency.

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

#559

Post by asadotzler » Fri, May 05, 2023, 3:10 AM UTC

rektide wrote: post #520

quijoteuniv wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I see this often. We didn't document our efforts well at creating the OSS ecosystem that youngsters take for granted today. They attribute the efforts of some thousands of advocates that made all this happen to "market forces" or some other nonsense. OSS exists because some really dedicated hackers and their allies spent years of mostly unrewarded effort making it happen.

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

#560

Post by exodust » Fri, May 05, 2023, 3:18 AM UTC

contravert wrote: post #360

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…

I just want to add my $0.02 currently working at a games studio that is integrating AI generated art into our art pipelines. Midjourney definitely generates really high quality art based on simple prompts, but the inability to really customize the output basically kills its utility. We heavily use Stable Diffusion with specific models and ControlNet to get customizable and consistent results. Our artists also need to…

> AI generated art into our art pipelines

I'd be interested to know where the art ends up in the game? Do you mean 2D backgrounds and billboards in-game? Or are we talking cut-scenes and menu screen art?