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

Evolving OpenAI's Structure

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 746 posts

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#411

Post by kmacdough »

drewbeck wrote: post #157
ballooney wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopelessly over-idealistic premise. Sama and pg have never been anything other than opportunistic muck. This will be my last ever comment on HN.

Oh I'm not saying they every believed more than their self-centered views, but that in a world that leaned more liberal there was value in trying to frame their work in those terms. Now there's no need to pretend.

And to those who "say" at least now they're honest, I say "WHY?!" Unconditionally being "good" would be better than disguising selfishness as good. But that's not really a thing. Having to maintain the presence of doing good puts significant boundaries on what you can get away with, and increases the consequence when people uncover some shit.

Condoning "honest liars" enables a whole other level of open and unrestricted criminality.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#412

Post by sanderjd »

skydhash wrote: post #283
sanderjd wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but I remember when search first started getting integrated with the browser and the "switch search engine" thing was significantly more prominent. Then Google became the default and nobody ever switched it and the rest is history. So the interesting question is: How did that happen? Why wasn't Google search an easily swapped commodity? Or if it was, how did they win and defend their default status? Why didn't t…

> So the interesting question is: How did that happen? Why wasn't Google search an easily swapped commodity? Or if it was, how did they win and defend their default status? Why didn't the existing juggernauts at the time (Microsoft) beat them at this game? Maybe the big amount of money they've given to Apple which is their direct competitor in the mobile space. Also good amount of money given to Firefox, which is the…

I don't think my comment implied that the answers to these questions aren't knowable! And indeed, I agree that the deals to pay for default status in different channels is a big part of that answer.

So then apply that to Open AI. What are the distribution channels? Should they be paying Cursor to make them the default model? Or who else? Would that work? If not, why not? What's different?

My intuition is that this wouldn't work for them. I think if this "pay to be default" strategy works for someone, it will be one of their deeper pocketed rivals.

But I also don't think this was the only reason Google won search. In my memory, those deals to pay to be the default came fairly long after they had successfully built the brand image as the best search engine. That's how they had the cash to afford to pay for this.

A couple years ago, I thought it seemed likely that Open AI would win the market in that way, by being known as the clear best model. But that seems pretty unclear now! There are a few different models that are pretty similarly capable at this point.

Essentially, I think the reason Google was able to win search whereas the prospects look less obvious for Open AI is that they just have stronger competition!

To me, it just highlights the extent to which the big players at the time of Google's rise - Microsoft, Yahoo, ... Oracle maybe? - really dropped the ball on putting up strong competition. (Or conversely, Google was just further ahead of its time.)

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#413

Post by JumpCrisscross »

voidspark wrote: post #366
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a binary classification. AGI systems can have degrees of performance and capability The "g" in AGI requires the AI be able to perform "the full spectrum of cognitively demanding tasks with proficiency comparable to, or surpassing, that of humans" [1]. Full and not full are binary. > if you oversimplify LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you can make the same argument for humans No, you can't, unless you're p…

Then you are simply rejecting any attempts to refine the definition of AGI. I already linked to the Google DeepMind paper. The definition is being debated in the AI research community. I already explained that definition is too limited because it doesn't capture all of the intermediate stages. That definition may be the end goal, but obviously there will be stages in between. > No, you can't, unless you're pre-suppos…

> I already linked to the Google DeepMind paper. The definition is being debated in the AI research community

Sure, Google wants to redefine AGI so it looks like things that aren’t AGI can be branded as such. That definition is, correctly in my opinion, being called out as bullshit.

> obviously there will be stages in between

We don’t know what the stages are. Folks in the 80s were similarly selling their expert systems as a stage to AGI. “Emerging AGI” is a bullshit term.

> If you reduce LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you completely ignore the the attention mechanism and conceptual internal representations. These systems have deep learning models with hundreds of layers and trillions of weights

Fair enough, granted.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#414

Post by sanderjd »

reasonableklout wrote: post #249
sanderjd wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but I remember when search first started getting integrated with the browser and the "switch search engine" thing was significantly more prominent. Then Google became the default and nobody ever switched it and the rest is history. So the interesting question is: How did that happen? Why wasn't Google search an easily swapped commodity? Or if it was, how did they win and defend their default status? Why didn't t…

Yes, I think people severely underrate the data flywheel effects that distribution gives an ML-based product, which is what Google was and ChatGPT is. It is also an extremely capital-intensive industry to be in, so even if LLMs are commoditized, it will be to the benefit of a few players, and barring a sustained lead by any one company over the others, I suspect the first mover will be very difficult to unseat. Googl…

Yeah, a very interesting metric to know would be how many tokens of prompt data (that is allowed to be used for training) the different products are seeing per day.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#415

Post by twodave »

directevolve wrote: post #271
atleastoptimal wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI companies are already automating huge swaths of document analysis, customer service. Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients. I know it’s fun to imagine AI is some big scam like crypto, but you’d have to be ignoring a lot of genuine non hype economic movement at this point to assume GAI isn’t making any money. Why does the forum of an incubator that now has a portfolio that is like 80% AI so rou…

Doctors were using Google to diagnose patients before. The thing is, it's still the doctor delivering the diagnosis, the doctor writing the prescription, and the doctor billing insurance. Unless and until patients or hospitals are willing and legally able to use ChatGPT as a replacement for a doctor (unwise), ChatGPT is not about to eat any doctor's lunch.

Not OP, but I think this makes the point, not argues against it. Something has come along that can supplant Google for a wide range of things. And it comes without ads (for now). It’s an opportunity to try a different business model, and if they succeed at that then it’s off to the races indeed.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#416

Post by ninkendo »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #376
atleastoptimal wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI companies are already automating huge swaths of document analysis, customer service. Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients. I know it’s fun to imagine AI is some big scam like crypto, but you’d have to be ignoring a lot of genuine non hype economic movement at this point to assume GAI isn’t making any money. Why does the forum of an incubator that now has a portfolio that is like 80% AI so rou…

> Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients. Oh we know: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11006786/

The article you posted describes a patient using ChatGPT to get a second opinion from what their doctor told them, not the doctor themself using ChatGPT.

The article could just as easily be about “Delayed diagnosis of a transient ischemic attack caused by talking to some rando on Reddit” and it would be just as (non) newsworthy.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#417

Post by moralestapia »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #410
moralestapia wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm ... I probably need to clarify what I'm talking about, so that peeps like @JumpCrisscross can get a better grasp of it. I do not mean the total market share of the category of businesses that could be labeled as "AI companies", like Microsoft or NVIDIA, on your first link. I will not talk about your second link because it does not seem to make sense within the context of this conversation (zero mentions or refere…

> that is the market that I'm talking about, and that is the one that I (correctly, as usual) estimated to be around 90% [1][2] Your second source doesn’t say what it’s measuring and disclaims itself as from its “‘experimental era’ — a beautiful mess of enthusiasm, caffeine, and user-submitted chaos.” Your first link only measures chatbots. ChatGPT is a chatbot. OpenAI sells AI models, including via ChatGPT. Among ch…

Sorry, I was off by 6% and you're right, I'm usually way more precise in my estimates.

>10%-20%

Lmao, not even in Puchal wildest dreams.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#418

Post by qcic »

poormathskills wrote: post #389
devjab wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any company sitting this out risks being unable to capture users back from Open AI at a later date. Why? I paid for Claude for a while, but with Deepseek, Gemini and the free hits on Mistral, ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity I'm not sure why I would now. This is anecdotal of course, but I'm very rarely unique in my behaviour. I think the best the subscription companies can hope for is that their subscribers don't rea…

>I'm very rarely unique in my behaviour I cannot stress this enough: if you know what Deepseek, Claude, Mistral, and Perplexity are, you are not a typical consumer. Arguably, if you have used a single one of those brands you are not a typical consumer. The vast majority of people have used ChatGPT and nothing else, except maybe clicking on Gemini or Meta AI by accident.

I doubt it. Google is shoving Gemini on everyone’s face through search, and Meta AI is embedded in every Meta product. Heck, instagram created a bot marketplace.

They might not “know” the brand as well as ChatGPT, but the average consumer has definitely been exposed to those at the very least.

DeepSeek also made a lot of noise, to the point that, anecdotally, I’ve seen a lot of people outside of tech using it.

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#419

Post by plaidfuji »

sumeno wrote: post #264
atleastoptimal wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI companies are already automating huge swaths of document analysis, customer service. Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients. I know it’s fun to imagine AI is some big scam like crypto, but you’d have to be ignoring a lot of genuine non hype economic movement at this point to assume GAI isn’t making any money. Why does the forum of an incubator that now has a portfolio that is like 80% AI so rou…

> Doctors are straight up using ChatGPT to diagnose patients This makes me want to invest in malpractice lawyers, not OpenAI

The lawyers will be obsolete far faster than the doctors

Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure

#420

Post by foobiekr »

voidspark wrote: post #96
Night_Thastus wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing OpenAI is doing, or ever has done, has been close to AGI.

Their multimodal models are a rudimentary form of AGI. EDIT: There can be levels of AGI. Google DeepMind have proposed a framework that would classify ChatGPT as "Emerging AGI". https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02462

Goalpost moving.
Post reply on HN