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

OpenAI's plans according to sama

humanloop.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 269 posts

Re: OpenAI's plans according to sama

#31

Post by typest »

furyofantares wrote: post #16
yesimahuman wrote: post #11

The bit about plugins not having PMF is interesting and possibly flawed. I, like many others, got access to plugins but not the browsing or code interpreter plugins which feel like the bedrock plugins that make the whole offering useful. I think there's also just education that has to happen to teach users how to effectively use other plugins, and the UX isn't really there to help new users figure out what to even do…

PMF meaning "product market fit"? I had to look it up, curious if I found the right thing or not.

Yes, PMF = "product market fit".

Re: OpenAI's plans according to sama

#32

Post by purplecats »

> Cheaper and faster GPT-4 — This is their top priority. In general, OpenAI’s aim is to drive “the cost of intelligence” down as far as possible and so they will work hard to continue to reduce the cost of the APIs over time.

this certainly aligns with the massive (albeit subjective and anecdotal) degradation in quality i've experienced with ChatGPT GPT-4 over the past few weeks.

hopefully a superior (higher quality) alternative surfaces before its unusable. i'm not considering continuing my subscription at this rate.

Re: OpenAI's plans according to sama

#34

Post by flangola7 »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #30
sharkjacobs wrote: post #24

> He reiterated his belief in the importance of open source and said that OpenAI was considering open-sourcing GPT-3. Part of the reason they hadn’t open-sourced yet was that he was skeptical of how many individuals and companies would have the capability to host and serve large LLMs. Am I reading this right? "We're not open sourcing GPT-3 because we don't think it would be useful to anyone else"

It is weird, but GPT-3 is worse than much smaller LLaMA models so I doubt it would see much use anyway.

Are you referring to DaVinci or ChatGPT-3.5

Re: OpenAI's plans according to sama

#37

Post by killjoywashere »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #30
sharkjacobs wrote: post #24

> He reiterated his belief in the importance of open source and said that OpenAI was considering open-sourcing GPT-3. Part of the reason they hadn’t open-sourced yet was that he was skeptical of how many individuals and companies would have the capability to host and serve large LLMs. Am I reading this right? "We're not open sourcing GPT-3 because we don't think it would be useful to anyone else"

It is weird, but GPT-3 is worse than much smaller LLaMA models so I doubt it would see much use anyway.

How do you measure this? Pointers to papers would be very helpful

Re: OpenAI's plans according to sama

#38

Post by sebzim4500 »

killjoywashere wrote: post #37
sebzim4500 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is weird, but GPT-3 is worse than much smaller LLaMA models so I doubt it would see much use anyway.

How do you measure this? Pointers to papers would be very helpful

The LLaMA paper had a bunch of comparisons

Re: OpenAI's plans according to sama

#39

Post by wsgeorge »

furyofantares wrote: post #16
yesimahuman wrote: post #11

The bit about plugins not having PMF is interesting and possibly flawed. I, like many others, got access to plugins but not the browsing or code interpreter plugins which feel like the bedrock plugins that make the whole offering useful. I think there's also just education that has to happen to teach users how to effectively use other plugins, and the UX isn't really there to help new users figure out what to even do…

PMF meaning "product market fit"? I had to look it up, curious if I found the right thing or not.

Had the same reaction. I was just about Googling it when it hit. Funny how the brain can work out a random acronym given context.

Re: OpenAI's plans according to sama

#40

Post by huijzer »

atemerev wrote: post #10

All AI companies (OpenAI included) are now working full tilt on making AIs improve themselves (writing their own code, inventing new pipelines etc). I don't know why choose anything else to work on. This is a prime directive, that will bring the greatest payoff.

I disagree since GPUs are a major constraint currently and that skilled specialists outperform GPT-4 almost always as long as they stay in their domain.

Will they use copilot(s) to improve the models? Yes, but they have been doing that since 2021 already (the release year of GitHub Copilot).

Post reply on HN