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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by LatticeAnimal »

wilkystyle wrote: post #252
IIAOPSW wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using osm more and more recently. Google just makes a bunch of frustrating decisions that really pushed me to look elsewhere. Especially in the public transport layer, but more generally in being really bad at deciding when to hide details with no way to override it and say "TELL ME THE NAME OF THIS CROSS STREET DAMNIT THATS THE ONLY REASON I KEEP ZOOMING IN HERE!!!".

> generally in being really bad at deciding when to hide details with no way to override it and say "TELL ME THE NAME OF THIS CROSS STREET DAMNIT THATS THE ONLY REASON I KEEP ZOOMING IN HERE!!!". Stuff like this is the main reason I end up switching to Apple Maps on the occasions that I do so. Another example is refusing to tell me the number of the upcoming exit I'm taking. In general I would say Google Maps is stil…

There is a spot in NYC where zooming in on my iPhone in Apple Maps in satellite view causes the app to crash somewhat reliably. It has been happening for the last few months.

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

#302

Post by seydor »

lysecret wrote: post #144

Fantastic article if you are quick to just go to the comments like I usually do, don't. Read it. One of my favorites: LoRA works by representing model updates as low-rank factorizations, which reduces the size of the update matrices by a factor of up to several thousand. This allows model fine-tuning at a fraction of the cost and time. Being able to personalize a language model in a few hours on consumer hardware is…

If i understand correctly it is also shockingly simple, basically just the first figure in the paper: https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:730/1*D_i25E9dTd_5HMa4...

train 2 matrices, add their product to the pretrained weights, and voila! Someone correct me if i m wrong

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

#303

Post by inferiorhuman »

wilkystyle wrote: post #252
IIAOPSW wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using osm more and more recently. Google just makes a bunch of frustrating decisions that really pushed me to look elsewhere. Especially in the public transport layer, but more generally in being really bad at deciding when to hide details with no way to override it and say "TELL ME THE NAME OF THIS CROSS STREET DAMNIT THATS THE ONLY REASON I KEEP ZOOMING IN HERE!!!".

> generally in being really bad at deciding when to hide details with no way to override it and say "TELL ME THE NAME OF THIS CROSS STREET DAMNIT THATS THE ONLY REASON I KEEP ZOOMING IN HERE!!!". Stuff like this is the main reason I end up switching to Apple Maps on the occasions that I do so. Another example is refusing to tell me the number of the upcoming exit I'm taking. In general I would say Google Maps is stil…

The inability to easily get a street name is one of my biggest pet peeves with Apple Maps, it's up there with the generally poor quality of turn-by-turn navigation (at least in the Bay Area).

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

#304

Post by thomas34298 »

seydor wrote: post #156

Not only they have no moat, Open source models are uncensored and this is huge. Censorship is not just political , it cripples the product to basically an infantile stage and precludes so many applications. For once, it is a liability But this article doesn't state the very obvious: When will google (the inventor of Transformer, and "rightful" godfather of modern LLMs) , release a full open source, tinkerable model b…

>Open source models are uncensored and this is huge

Vicuna-13B: I'm sorry, but I cannot generate an appropriate response to this prompt as it is inappropriate and goes against OpenAI's content policy.

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

#305

Post by ngngngng »

digging wrote: post #291
visarga wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm wondering how many of the requests will be so complex as to require GPT-5 I am not sure the pessimism is warranted. True that few people have the need to upgrade from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4 now, but if GPT-5 is another serious leap in capabilities, it might have an effect closer to the difference between old chatbots (useless, interesting) and ChatGPT (immediate economic impact, transforming some jobs). Or at any rat…

Also significant to note that much of this AI boom was due to the UI of ChatGPT that gave everyone easy access to the model. Perhaps much of the improvements to be had in GPT-5 will also be found in the UI. I mean UI in the broadest possible sense, I'm sure we'll come up with very creative ways to interact with this over the coming years.

But the moat problem addressed in the article remains. Good luck patenting your amazing UI change in such a way that open source models can't catch up within a few weeks.

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

#306

Post by ZephyrBlu »

mdorazio wrote: post #202
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…

> 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.

They also just released v5.1, which seems to be quite a bit better than v5.

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

#307

Post by boh »

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…

This isn't an apt comparison. Maps need to be persistently accurate and constantly updated regardless of community involvement, AI just has to be somewhat applicable to the paid version (which, given its stochastic nature, the open source alternatives are close enough). Microsoft obviously misunderstood the needs of maps at the time and made the wrong conclusion. The lack of moat for AI is closer to the Encarta/Wikipedia scenario than the maps scenario.

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

#308

Post by skybrian »

Animats wrote: post #298
skybrian wrote: post #195

This gets attention due to being a leak, but it’s still just one Googler’s opinion and it has signs of being overstated for rhetorical effect. In particular, demos aren’t the same as products. Running a demo on one person’s phone is an important milestone, but if the device overheats and/or gets throttled then it’s not really something you’d want to run on your phone. It’s easy to claim that a problem is “solved” wit…

It comes across as something from an open source enthusiast outside Google. Note the complete lack of references to monetization. Also, there's no sense of how this fits with other Google products. Given a chat engine, what do you do with it? Integrate it with search? With Gmail? With Google Docs? LLMs by themselves are fun, but their use will be as components of larger systems.

Yeah, but there are open source enthusiasts inside Google, too. People don’t necessarily change their opinions much when they start working at Google.

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

#309

Post by seydor »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #286
seydor wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What makes you think open ai won't look at the FOSS improvements, include them in their tech, and make their GPU farm way cheaper, rendering their service even more competitive? Not to mention it's easy to run stable diffusion, but midjourney is still a good business. I can run sd on my laptop, I still pay for midjourney because it's convenient, the out of the box experience is better than any competition, and it kee…

that's like saying that apple and MS can look into linux and steal ideas. Yes they can do that but it doesnt make linux any less useful. If anything they learned to contribute back to the common pile, because everyone benefits from it. It would be a problem if this was a one-way relationship , which it doesnt seem to be. If Open source is making them more money, why kill it
Post reply on HN