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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

cubefox wrote: post #437
LordDragonfang wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Midjourney is more popular because it takes zero technical know-how compared to SD (even with A1111 it took me nearly an hour to walk my competent-but-layman brother through installing it) and doesn't require a high-end gaming PC to run it. (DALL-E lost because they let MJ eat their lunch)

> DALL-E lost because they let MJ eat their lunch I wonder why nobody is talking about Bing Image Creator https://www.bing.com/images/create which uses some much more advanced version of Dall-E 2 in the background (so Dall-E 2.5? 3?), while being completely free to use. It can produce some pretty mind blowing results with quite simple prompts, although apparently not as impressive as Midjourney V5. A few examples: hy…

"Use of Creations. Subject to your compliance with this Agreement, the Microsoft Services Agreement, and our Content Policy, you may use Creations outside of the Online Services for any legal personal, non-commercial purpose."

Probably not the only factor but could be one.

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

#702

Post by htss2013 »

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…

Thats like saying in 1995 search is going to be integrated into everything, not a destination. That'd be true but also very wrong. Google.com ended up as the main destination.

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

#703

Post by melagonster »

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…

free as freedom, but not free as beer?

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

#705

Post by BiteCode_dev »

mastax wrote: post #651
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #622

Investors are obsessed with moats, but people have to realize that the entire world runs on business that have no moats. There are no moats to being a plumber, a baker, a restaurant... The moat concept is predominant because the idea that everything must make billions have infected the debate about businesses. It's all about being a unicorn, a giant, a monopoly, making every body at the top billionaires, and it's lik…

No reason to invest loads of capital unless you're building a moat.

Yes, but open ai is not an investor, it's the company. They don't have to follow this logic, they can build something without thinking of the moat, and succeed anyway.

The moat is a priority for rent seekers, but most successful builders didn't start by that.

Coca cola, Mac Donald, Gillet and all the Buffet favorite children didn't grow by thinking moat first. The moat was built on the way, sometimes very late.

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

#706

Post by ArthurAardvark »

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…

Stupid, silly me who knows little-to-nothing about the lore of OS. Why can't OS devs simply write out in the OS licensing that their wonderful work is usable by anyone and everybody unless you belong to Alphabet/Meta/Oracle/Adobe/Twitter/Microsoftpen– McCorps & their subsidiaries?

I imagine it comes down to ol' Googly & the boys taking advantage of the OS work -> OS devs backed by weak NFOs sue X corp. -> X corp. manages to delay the courts and carries on litigation so the bill is astronomical aka ain't nobody footing that -> ???

I imagine 90% end up taking some sort of $ and handover the goods like Chromium, though.

So back to square one, guess we kowtow and pray for us prey?

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

#707

Post by [deleted] »

hyperthesis wrote: post #647
safety1st wrote: post #591

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…

Christensen's disruptive vs sustaining innovations is more descriptive than predictive. But if it's the same customers, solving the same problem, in the same way (from their point of view), then it's probably "sustaining" and incumbents win. Different customers, problems, ways - and all bets are off. Worse, incumbents are dependent on their customers, having optimized the company around them. Even if they know the op…

[deleted]

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

#708

Post by [deleted] »

bsaul wrote: post #602
safety1st wrote: post #591

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.

[deleted]

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

#709

Post by poulpy123 »

safety1st wrote: post #591
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…

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…

That weird because I remember clearly Microsoft was late in the internet game, and managed to catch up because they could use their monopoly on personal computers for internet explorer

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

#710

Post by lucubratory »

jxmorris12 wrote: post #700
bionhoward wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to push back on the data argument is to consider the progress DeepMind made with self play. Perhaps Bard can self-dialogue and achieve superhuman results. I won’t be surprised. Plus the underlying architecture is dense. Sparse transformers are a major upgrade. That’s only one of many upgrades you can make. There is still a lot of headroom and IMHO GPT-4 already implements AGI if you give it the right context

Self-play works for eg Go because there’s a perfect simulator of the game – which gives at least one very clear training signal, winning . There’s no simulator for conversation, no winning, and no training signal. Self-dialog doesn’t make any sense

I could think of ways you could make a good attempt at it. You could have a generator/discriminator relationship where you have a model whose purpose is to evaluate model outputs for things other than just toxicity (basically RLHF for capabilities), then use that to train. You could have code generation tasks where the code is actually executed and a success/failure signal sent based on code performance. You could do logical puzzle generator/logical puzzle solver pairs and have a separate system evaluate answer correctness based on a human dataset baseline, or maybe a model programmed to be able to turn natural language logic puzzles into API calls to a formal logical engine solver to get the answer for comparison. You could make a simple program to turn randomly generated mathematical problems into word problems, use an AI to add extraneous detail while protecting the core problem description, then give the resulting word problems to an AI and use a separate AI to extract out the final answer or conclusion. Then compare that answer to what the calculator says for the original math problem.

All of those have problems and would be very compute expensive, plus the limitation I struggle to see around where if you're using a model to train another model you maybe can't get better than that model. But I think we could build architectures which provide large labelled training datasets to LLMs for any problem that can be deterministically solved by us using more traditional computing methods, like maths and some logic puzzles. Maybe if we use those datasets we can make it so that LLMs are able to do maths and difficult logic problems natively, and maybe the internal machinery they develop to do that could help them in other areas. Would be a fun research project.

Post reply on HN