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

131–140 of 1001 posts

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

#131

Post by HelloMcFly »

hospitalJail wrote: post #102
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…

>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…

> Midjourney is easier, its not better

Does being easier not influence whether it's better? I mean this in that for many of the ways AI art would be used, MJ already seems to be "good enough" at a lot of it.

Secondarily: doesn't Midjourney's increased user base and increased ratings they get from users help it refine its model, thus meaning that "ease of use" creates a feedback loop with "quality of output" because more users are engaged?

I'm asking real questions, not making a statement I believe in and just adding a question mark.

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

#132

Post by hospitalJail »

ketzo wrote: post #120
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…

Do you have a link to a decent tutorial for someone to do what you're describing in the last paragraph?

Do you need additional detail that cannot be found here?

https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui

Or are you looking for the cutting edge stuff like control net?

If you want to use colab instead, I used this a month or two ago.

https://colab.research.google.com/github/TheLastBen/fast-sta...

I hope other people can give you further reading.

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

#133

Post by erichocean »

ketzo wrote: post #120
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…

Do you have a link to a decent tutorial for someone to do what you're describing in the last paragraph?

There are dozens on YouTube. My kids did it, and they don't even program and had never touched Python in their life.

Even trained their own models using a cloud GPU.

The SD ecosystem is wild.

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

#135

Post by xhrpost »

ketzo wrote: post #120
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…

Do you have a link to a decent tutorial for someone to do what you're describing in the last paragraph?

It took me a little hunting, but thanks to Reddit I eventually found a cloud-gpu host that provides a working Stable Diffusion image. So you basically don't have to do anything that GP said. Everything is installed and you just rent the hardware.

https://www.runpod.io/console/templates

Look for "RunPod Stable Diffusion". I spent a whole $0.35/hr playing around with my own SD instance that I had running in minutes.

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

#136

Post by dragonwriter »

whatshisface wrote: post #105
cube2222 wrote: post #83

Some snippets for folks who come just for the comments: > While our models still hold a slight edge in terms of quality, the gap is closing astonishingly quickly. Open-source models are faster, more customizable, more private, and pound-for-pound more capable. They are doing things with $100 and 13B params that we struggle with at $10M and 540B. And they are doing so in weeks, not months. > A tremendous outpouring of…

Meta's leaked model isn't open-source. I can found a business using Linux, that's open-source. The LLM piracy community are unpaid FB employees; it is not legal for anyone but Meta to use the results of their labor. I know this might be hard news but it needs to be said... if you want to put your time into working on open source LLMs, you need to get behind something you have a real (and yes, open source) license for…

> Meta’s leaked model isn’t open-source.

Meta’s leaked model has been a factor in spurring open source development, whether or not it is open source; the article also discusses the practical market of effect of leaked-but-not-open things like Meta’s model combined with the impracticality of prosecuting the vast hordes of individuals using it, and particularly notes that the open-except-for-the-base-model work on top of it is a major benefit for Meta (who can use the work directly) that locks out everyone else in the commercial market (who cannot), and leaning into open source base models is a counter to that.

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

#137

Post by akomtu »

Hippocrates wrote: post #80
sashank_1509 wrote: post #5

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!

I'd agree they aren't close, but they are way better than I expected to see in a short few months. At this rate they'll be approaching "good enough" for me pretty soon. I don't always need a dissertation out of it unless I'm fooling around. I want quick facts and explainers around difficult code and calculations. Been playing with Vicuna-7b on my iPhone through MLC Chat and it's impressive. I use DDG over Google for…

Once distributed training is solved, all those big LLMs will be left in the dust.

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

#139

Post by com2kid »

visarga wrote: post #99
ChaitanyaSai wrote: post #86

This is easily among the rare highest quality articles/comments I've read in the past weeks, perhaps months (on LLMs/AI since that's what I am particularly interested in). And this was for internal consumption before it was made public. Reinforces my recent impression that so much that's being made for public consumption now is shallow and it is hard to find the good stuff. And sadly, increasing so even on HN. As I w…

I've been saying the same things for weeks, right here and in the usual places. Basically - OpenAI will not be able to continue to commercialise chatGPT-3.5, they will have to move to GPT-4 because the open source alternatives will catch up. Their island of exclusivity is shrinking fast. In a few months nobody will want to pay for GPT-4 either when they can have private, cheap equivalents. So GPT-5 it is for OpenAI.…

> I've been saying the same things for weeks, right here and in the usual places. Basically - OpenAI will not be able to continue to commercialise chatGPT-3.5, they will have to move to GPT-4 because the open source alternatives will catch up. Their island of exclusivity is shrinking fast. In a few months nobody will want to pay for GPT-4 either when they can have private, cheap equivalents. So GPT-5 it is for OpenAI.

It is worth $20 a month to have one UI on one service that does everything.

Unless specialized models can far exceed what GPT4 can do, being general purpose is amazing.

IMHO the future is APIs written for consumption by LLMs, and then natural language interfaces and just telling an AI literally anything you want done.

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

#140

Post by visarga »

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…

> users will go to whoever has the best model

Depends. You might want privacy, need low price in order to process big volumes, need no commercial restrictions, need a different tuning, or the task is easy enough and can be done by the smaller free model - why not? Why pay money, leak information, and get subjected to their rules?

You will only use GPT-4 or 5 for that 10% of tasks that really require it. The future spells bad for OpenAI, there is less profit in the large and seldom used big models. For 90% of the tasks there is a "good enough" level, and we're approaching it, we don't need smarter models except rarely.

Another concern for big model developers is data leaks - you can exfiltrate the skills of a large model by batch solving tasks. This works pretty well, you can make smaller models that are just as good as GPT-4 but on a single task. So you can do that if you need to call the API too many times - make your own free and libre model.

I think the logical response in this situation would be to start working on AI-anti-malware, like filters for fake news and deceptive sites. It's gonna be a cat and mouse game from now on. Better to accept this situation and move on, we can't stop AI misuse completely, we'll have to manage it, and learn quickly.

Post reply on HN