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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by zoiksmeboiks »

dahwolf wrote: post #389

The current paradigm is that AI is a destination. A product you go to and interact with. That's not at all how the masses are going to interact with AI in the near future. It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. In Office/Google docs, at the operating system level (Android), in your graphics editor (Adobe), on major web platforms: search, image search, Youtube, the like. Since Google and other…

Eventually Google will still lose to open models and AI chips.

Hardware performance is what’s making AI “work” now, not LLMs which are a cognitive model for humans not machines. LLMs are incompatible with the resources of a Pentium 3 era computer.

Managing electron state is just math. Human language meaning is relative to our experience, it does not exist elsewhere in physical reality. All the syntax and semantics we layered on was for us not the machines.

End users buy hardware, not software. Zuckerberg needs VR gadgets to sell because Meta is not Intel, Apple, AMD, nVidia.

The software industry is deluding itself if it does not see the massive contraction on the horizon.

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

#402

Post by chabons »

4ndrewl wrote: post #398
dahwolf wrote: post #389

The current paradigm is that AI is a destination. A product you go to and interact with. That's not at all how the masses are going to interact with AI in the near future. It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. In Office/Google docs, at the operating system level (Android), in your graphics editor (Adobe), on major web platforms: search, image search, Youtube, the like. Since Google and other…

This is 100% correct - products evolve to become features. Not sure OpenAI faces the existential risk as MS need them to compete with Google in this space.

> Not sure OpenAI faces the existential risk as MS need them to compete with Google in this space.

I think OP is arguing that in that partnership Microsoft holds the power, as they have the existing platforms. The linked article argues that AI technology itself is not as much of a moat as previously thought, and the argument therefore is that Microsoft likely doesn't need OpenAI in the long term.

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

#403

Post by ghaff »

summerlight wrote: post #18

This looks like a personal manifesto from an engineer who doesn't even attempt to write it on behalf of Google? The title is significantly misleading.

And (probably) through no fault of their own they'll get totally thrown under the bus for this--whether directly but when raises/promotions come around or not.

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

#404

Post by dahwolf »

kelipso wrote: post #397
dahwolf wrote: post #389

The current paradigm is that AI is a destination. A product you go to and interact with. That's not at all how the masses are going to interact with AI in the near future. It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. In Office/Google docs, at the operating system level (Android), in your graphics editor (Adobe), on major web platforms: search, image search, Youtube, the like. Since Google and other…

To be fair, the open source model has been what's been working for the last few decades. The concern with LLMs was that open source (and academia) couldn't do what the big companies are doing because they couldn't get access to enough computing resources. The article is arguing (and I guess open source ML groups are showing) you don't need those computing resources to pave the way. It's still an open question whether…

That makes sense. But I would argue to smaller/cheaper models are not a threat to Google, they are a solution. They will still have the reach advantage and can more cheaply integrate small/low costs models at every touch point.

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

#405

Post by yieldcrv »

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 retrains itself, I have one click installer apps for SD, Midjourney and the live prompt community is very good

None of this stuff is copyrightable so I dont care that its not private

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

#406

Post by wg0 »

Google's best bet to topple the existing advantage from the competition is to train a model on their whole giant internet index on their own compute cloud and then release that model under GPL v3.0/Apache/MIT/CC license.

This will eliminate first mover advantage for the competition. These models (by OpenAPI et el.) however, cannot be monetised indefinitely just like in past compilers, kernels and web servers could not be monetised indefinitely.

These days, majority of the computing is on GCC, Clang, LLVM and Linux which wasn't the case at one point and even Intel used to sell their own compiler (not sure of the current status)

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

#407

Post by obiefernandez »

ineedasername wrote: post #384
reissbaker wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT-4 is so much better for complex tasks that I wouldn't use anything else. Trying to get 3.5 to do anything complicated is like pulling teeth, and using something worse than 3.5... Oof. TBH this feels like cope from Google; Bard is embarrassingly bad and they expected to be able to compete with OpenAI. In my experience, despite their graph in the article that puts them ahead of Vicuna-13B, they're actually behind..…

Yes, I'd readily pay for GPT-4 access, though not the limited 25 requests per 3 hours version. I ponied up $20 for a month of usage to check it out, and it performs head & shoulders above 3.5 in its ability to comprehensively address more complex prompts and provide output that is more nuanced than ChatGPT. I'll also point out that paid api access to 3.5 (davinci-03) is frequently better than ChatGPT's use of 3.5. Yo…

If you're technical just get yourself OpenAI API access which is super cheap and hook it up to your own self-hosted ChatGPT clone like https://github.com/magma-labs/magma-chat

The wait for GPT-4 is not as long as it used to be, and when you're using the API directly there's no censorship.

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

#408

Post by Certhas »

narrator wrote: post #396
dahwolf wrote: post #389

The current paradigm is that AI is a destination. A product you go to and interact with. That's not at all how the masses are going to interact with AI in the near future. It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. In Office/Google docs, at the operating system level (Android), in your graphics editor (Adobe), on major web platforms: search, image search, Youtube, the like. Since Google and other…

I think the problem with AI being everywhere and ubiquitous is that AI is the first technology in a very long time that requires non-trivial compute power. That compute power costs money. This is why you only get a limited number of messages every few hours from GPT4. It simply costs too much to be a ubiquitous technology. For example, the biggest LLama model only runs on an A100 that costs about $15,000 on ebay. The…

The article talks about this explicitly though. Reasonably good models are running on raspberry Pis now.

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

#409

Post by TeMPOraL »

dahwolf wrote: post #389

The current paradigm is that AI is a destination. A product you go to and interact with. That's not at all how the masses are going to interact with AI in the near future. It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. In Office/Google docs, at the operating system level (Android), in your graphics editor (Adobe), on major web platforms: search, image search, Youtube, the like. Since Google and other…

Honestly, I can't see Google failing here. Like other tech giants, they're sitting on a ridiculously large war chest. Worst case, they can wait for the space to settle a bit and spend a few billion to buy the market leader. If AI really is an existential threat to their business prospects, spending their reserves on this is a no-brainer.

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

#410

Post by toyg »

kenjackson wrote: post #125
toyg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Linux won in servers and supercomputing, but not in end user computing "End user computing" these days means mobile, and mobile is dominated by Linux (in Apple's case BSD, but we're splitting hair) and Chrome/WebKit - which began as KHTML. The only area where opensource failed is the desktop, and that's also because of Microsoft's skill in defending their moats.

The kernel isn't the OS/environment. Distiling iOS to BSD is just not useful in the context of this discussion.

The kernel is absolutely the OS, the desktop environment is an interface to it.
Post reply on HN