271–280 of 343 posts
I'm confused now... Apple's other announcement today discussed on-device AI. So what sorts of queries will be on-device and what will be sent to OpenAI? How does this distinction appear in the UI?
It’s in the keynote video.
IMO this really feels like the Facebook / Twitter integration from early iOS. That only lasted a few years. Apple clearly thinks it needs a dedicated LLM service atm. But still thinks it is only supplemental as they handle a bunch of the core stuff without it. And require explicit user consent to use OpenAI. And Apple clearly views it as a partial commodity since they even said they plan to add others. Tough to bet a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people here somehow thinking they will simultaneously outsmart: * The CEO of a three trillion dollar company that employs 100,000+ of the best talent you could find around the world, with the best lawyers in the world one phone call away. Also, one of the best performing CEOs in modern times. AND * The CEO of the AI company (ok ... non-profit) that pretty much brought up the current wave of AI to existence and w…
You make it sound like it's merit or competence that landed Cook in that position, and that he somehow has earned the prestige of the position? I could buy that argument about Jobs. Cook is just a guy with a title. He follows rules and doesn't get fired, but otherwise does everything he can with all the resources at his disposal to make as much money as possible. Given those same constraints and resources, most peopl…
In any case, "dime a dozen" doesn't do him justice -- he was very accomplished, in ways you can't fake, before becoming CEO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, just in three to five years, lots of "AI boxes" and those magical sparkling icons next to input fields summoning AI would be silently removed. LLMs are not accurate, they aren't subject matter experts that'll be maybe within 5% error margin. People will gradually learn and discover anf the cost of keeping a model updated and running won't drastically reduce so we'll most likely see dust settling down.
> People will gradually learn and discover anf the cost of keeping a model updated and running won't drastically reduce so we'll most likely see dust settling down. As mentioned elsewhere, 3 to 5 years is some 3x to 5x as long as GPT-4 exists; some 2-3x as long as ChatGPT exists and LLMs suddenly graduated from being obscure research projects to general-purpose tools. Do you really believe the capability limit has al…
As for money and reputation, that's a lot behind gold making too in medieval times and look where that lead too.
Scientific optimism is a thinking distortion and a fallacy too.
OpenAI is such a controversial company and good competitors like Anthropic, who arguably align better with their brand, exist. That makes the deal so weird to me.
OpenAI has nothing of particularly high value. They're giving away the store right now just to claim the onboarding. This unsustainable game will end badly and soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three years is more than twice the time since GPT-4 was released to now. Almost twice the time ChatGPT existed. At this rate, even if we'll end up with GPT-4 equivalents runnable on consumer hardware, the top models made available by big players via API will make local LLMs feel useless. For the time being, the incentive to use a service will continue. It's like a graphics designer being limited to chose between loca…
No one knows how it will all shake out. I'm personally skeptical scaling laws will hold beyond GPT4 sized models. GPT4 is likely severely undertrained given how much data facebook is using to train their 8B parameter models. Unless OpenAI has a dramatic new algorithmic discovery or a vast trove of previously unused data, I think GPT5 and beyond will be modest improvements. Alternatively synthetic data might drive the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, just in three to five years, lots of "AI boxes" and those magical sparkling icons next to input fields summoning AI would be silently removed. LLMs are not accurate, they aren't subject matter experts that'll be maybe within 5% error margin. People will gradually learn and discover anf the cost of keeping a model updated and running won't drastically reduce so we'll most likely see dust settling down.
LLMs are not accurate, they aren't subject matter experts that'll be maybe within 5% error margin. You're asserting that the AI features will be removed in 3 to 5 years because they're not accurate enough today , but you actually need them to remain inaccurate in 3 years time for your prediction to be correct. That seems unlikely. I agree that people will start to realize the cost, but the accuracy will improve, so p…
Forget about a model that knows EVERYTHING. Let's just train a model that only is expert in not all the law of United states just one state and not even that, just understands FULLY the tax law of just one state to the extent that whatever documents you throw at it, it beats a tax consultancy firm every single time.
If even that were possible, OpenAI et.el would be playing this game differently.
"Siri add an alarm for an appointment for the dentist tomorrow at 10" Sets appointment for 10pm Will the Siri team be fired or are they in charge of openAI integration?
Its given that a dentist appointment is never usually at 10PM - this doesn't seem probable. LLMs are good at generalizing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO the terribly overlooked issue with generative AI is that the end users' views of the response generated by the LLM often differs greatly from the opinion of the person actually interacting with the model this is particularly evident with image generation, but I think it's true across the board. for example, you may think something I created on midjourney "looks amazing", whereas I may dislike it because it's so…
Your last paragraph is true regardless of how the image was generated. One can find anything YOU produce to have different qualities from you.
In other words, there are two different objectives in a "drawing": (1) portraying that which I meant to portray and (2) making it aesthetically appealing
People who only see the finished product may be impressed by #2 and never consider how bad I was at #1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound like it's merit or competence that landed Cook in that position, and that he somehow has earned the prestige of the position? I could buy that argument about Jobs. Cook is just a guy with a title. He follows rules and doesn't get fired, but otherwise does everything he can with all the resources at his disposal to make as much money as possible. Given those same constraints and resources, most peopl…
I was with you until your last sentence. By all accounts Cook was one of the world's most effective managers of production and logistics -- a rare talent. He famously streamlined Apple's stock-keeping practices when he was a new hire at Apple. How much he exercises that talent in his day-to-day as CEO is not perfectly clear; it may perhaps have atrophied. In any case, "dime a dozen" doesn't do him justice -- he was v…
There's a tendency to exaggerate the qualities of men in positions like this. There's nothing inherent to their positions requiring greatness or incredible merit. The extraordinary events already happened; their job is to simply not screw it up, and our system is such that you'd have to try really, really hard to have any noticeable impact, let alone actually hurt a company before the institution itself cuts you out. Those lawyers are a significant part of the organism of a modern mega corporation; they're the substrate upon which the algorithm that is a corporation is running. One of the defenses modern corporations employ is to limit the impact any individual in the organization can have, positive or otherwise, and to employ intense scrutiny and certainty of action commensurate with the power of a position.
Throw Cook into an start-up arena against Musk, Gates, Altman, Jobs, Buffet, etc, and he'd get eaten alive. Cook isn't the scrappy, agile, innovative, ruthless start-up CEO. He's the complacent, steady, predictable institutional CEO coasting on the laurels of his betters, shielded from the trials they faced through the sheer inertia of the organization he currently helms.
They're different types of leaders for different phases of the megacorp organism, and it's OK that Cook isn't Jobs 2.0 - that level of wildness and unpredictability that makes those types of leaders their fortunes can also result in the downfall of their companies. Musk acts with more freedom; the variance in behavior results in a variance of fortunes. Apple is more stable because of Cook, but it's not because he's particularly special. Simply steady and sane.