611–620 of 1001 posts
I don't know if I agree with the article. I recall when Google IPO'ed, nobody outside of Google really knew how much traffic they had and how much money they were making. Microsoft was caught off-guard. Compare this to ChatGPT: My friends, parents, grandparents, and coworkers (in the hospital) use ChatGPT. None of these people know how to adapt an open source model to their own use. I bet ChatGPT is vastly ahead in t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It being everywhere worries me a lot. It outputs a lot of false information and the typical person doesn’t have the time or inclination to vet the output. Maybe this is a problem that will be solved. I’m not optimistic on that front.
Same can be said about the results that pop up on your favorite search engine or asking other people questions. If anything advances in AI & search tech will do a better job at providing citations that agree & disagree with the results given. But this can be a turtles all the way down problem.
My observation is that Amazon is going to have challenges as they don’t have products that they can push their AI offerings. Now they could do work on Amazon.com to improve search and finding what their customer wants. Their most recent video on this topic, shows that they don’t have a solution now and it’s unclear to me how they will project a solution to the mass market as they don’t have consumer/business facing s…
The timescale for integrating such tools into existing business models or developing new business models is a different story. They don't need to impress the over-exited social media echo chambers, they need to project 1) legal (not subject to lawsuits), 2) stable (not a fad) and 3) defendable (the moat thingy) cash flows for multi-years forward.
Actually the hoopla of the past year where a lot of preliminary stuff is released/discussed/leaked does not fit at all the playbook of a "serious" corporate. Not clear what it really means, maybe big tech is feeling that the status quo is very fragile, so they take more risk than necessary or maybe they are so confident that they don't care about optics.
Cringe, haven’t seen a single Open Source come even close to the ability of Bard, let alone ChatGPT. Seems like wishful thinking to think decentralized open source can beat centralized models that cost 100M+ to train!
> Seems like wishful thinking to think decentralized open source can beat centralized models that cost 100M+ to train! Because surely price = quality. Solid argumentation there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no guarantees about who will or won't own the future, just the observation that disruptive technology makes everyone's fate more volatile. Big tech companies like Google have a lot of in-built advantages, but they're notoriously bad at executing on pivots which fundamentally alter or commoditize their core business. If that wasn't true we'd all be using Microsoft phones (or heck, IBM PCs AND phones). In Goo…
in 1995 people understood very well what internet was going to become. The technology just wasn't there yet, but every kid and parents remember very well the sound of that modem and the phone lines beeing busy. That memo would have been prescient if made 5 years before.
In October 1994 a Wired journalist registered mcdonalds.com and then tried to give it to Mcdonalds, but couldn't reach anyone who understood the importance of domain name registration: https://archive.is/tHaea
In my recollection it really wasn't til 1998-2001 or so that people (where I lived in the southern U.S. anyway) really started to take notice.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no guarantees about who will or won't own the future, just the observation that disruptive technology makes everyone's fate more volatile. Big tech companies like Google have a lot of in-built advantages, but they're notoriously bad at executing on pivots which fundamentally alter or commoditize their core business. If that wasn't true we'd all be using Microsoft phones (or heck, IBM PCs AND phones). In Goo…
> If that wasn't true we'd all be using Microsoft phones (or heck, IBM PCs AND phones). Once an IBM Office Manager was offering me a job and explained "IBM is a marketing organization." So, the focus was not really on computers or phones but on the central, crucial, bet your business data processing of the larger and largest companies -- banking, insurance, manufacturing, ..., and marketing to them. So, the focus of…
This gets attention due to being a leak, but it’s still just one Googler’s opinion and it has signs of being overstated for rhetorical effect. In particular, demos aren’t the same as products. Running a demo on one person’s phone is an important milestone, but if the device overheats and/or gets throttled then it’s not really something you’d want to run on your phone. It’s easy to claim that a problem is “solved” wit…
It comes across as something from an open source enthusiast outside Google. Note the complete lack of references to monetization. Also, there's no sense of how this fits with other Google products. Given a chat engine, what do you do with it? Integrate it with search? With Gmail? With Google Docs? LLMs by themselves are fun, but their use will be as components of larger systems.
And while integrating a LLM into, say, Google Docs can be a selling point, it's not going to be a moat if OSS developers have access to their own LLMs; end users are going to choose Google Docs over FoobarOffice Online™ because Google Docs has a slightly better auto-complete or whatever.
So even if Google decides to integrates their LLM into Doc, it's not clear that it wouldn't benefit from open-sourcing that LLM and encouraging people to experiment on it.
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…
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…
Doesn't Microsoft products get used more times in a day by more paying customers than Google products?
OpenAI won't have a problem because they reach more paying customers via Microsoft than Google can.