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

201–210 of 1001 posts

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

#201

Post by jiggywiggy »

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…

Im a noob. But the time for Wikipedia language models & training models seems ripe.

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

#202

Post by mdorazio »

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.

By what measure? Midjourney v5 is massively better with every prompt topic I've thrown at it than SD. It's not even close. SD, however, is much better if you want an actual customizable toolchain or to do things like train it on your own face/character.

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

#204

Post by BoorishBears »

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…

I have SD up on a machine with a 3090 and it can't produce output half as good as MJ without a ton of work.

I use SD to augment MJ, like fixing hands with specific LORAs for example, so I definitely appreciate that it exists. But for actually creating a full image in one shot, they're not even comparable.

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

#205

Post by passwordoops »

Cynical rant begin

I'm sorry but I think this has more to do with looming anti trust legislation and the threat of being broken up than a sincere analysis of moats. Especially with the FTC's announcement on Meta yesterday, I'm seeing lots of folks say we need to come down hard on AI too. This letter's timing is a bit too convenient.

Cynical rant over

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

#206

Post by bilbo0s »

seydor wrote: post #186
minimaxir wrote: post #37

Having enough scale to perpetually offer free/low-cost compute is a moat. The primary reason ChatGPT went viral in the first place was because it was free, with no restrictions. Back in 2019, GPT-2 1.5B was made freely accessible by a single developer via the TalkToTransformers website, which was the very first time many people talking about AI text generation...then the owner got hit with sticker shock from the GPU…

That's what a lot of people think until they run Vicuna 13B or equivalent. We're just 5 months in this, there will be many leaps.

Yes there will, that's the problem HN User Minimaxir is talking about.

It will only get less and less expensive for Microsoft in terms of cost. And more and more effective for Microsoft in terms of results delivered.

How do you compete with free? That's the question. The previous internet experience has already shown us that "also be free" is not really a sustainable or even effective answer. You have to be better in some fundamental dimension.

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

#207

Post by PeterCorless »

jiggywiggy wrote: post #201
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…

Im a noob. But the time for Wikipedia language models & training models seems ripe.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model#List_of_l...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_datasets_for_machine-l...

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

#208

Post by goatlover »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #179
whimsicalism wrote: post #101

> Giant models are slowing us down. In the long run, the best models are the ones which can be iterated upon quickly. We should make small variants more than an afterthought, now that we know what is possible in the Maybe this is true for the median query/conversation that people are having with these agents - but it certainly has not been what I have observed in my experience in technical/research work. GPT-4 is leg…

My understanding was that most of the current research effort was towards trimming and/or producing smaller models with power of larger models, is that not true?

Doesn't mean the smaller models are anywhere close to the capabilities of GPT-4.

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

#210

Post by tpmx »

CSMastermind wrote: post #192

I remember I was at Microsoft more than a decade ago now and at the time there was a lot of concern about search and how far Bing lagged behind Google in geospatial (maps). After some initial investment in the area I was at a presentation where one of the higher ups explained that they'd be abandoning their investment because Google Maps would inevitably fall behind crowdsourcing and OpenStreetMap. Just like Encarta…

Is that a relevant comparison? The moat in maps is primarily capital-intensive real-world data collection/licensing.

The (supposedly) leaked article attempts to show that this aspect isn't that relevant in the AI/LLM context.

Post reply on HN