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

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Post by mattferderer »

irrational wrote: post #446
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…

It being everywhere worries me a lot. It outputs a lot of false information and the typical person doesn’t have the time or inclination to vet the output. Maybe this is a problem that will be solved. I’m not optimistic on that front.

Same can be said about the results that pop up on your favorite search engine or asking other people questions.

If anything advances in AI & search tech will do a better job at providing citations that agree & disagree with the results given. But this can be a turtles all the way down problem.

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

#452

Post by patrickk »

Animats wrote: post #420
narrator wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a win for Google that LLMs are getting cheaper to run. OpenAI's service is too expensive to be ad-funded. Google needs a technology that's cheaper to provide to maintain their ad-supported business model.

Google could make a bet like they did with YouTube.

At the time, operating YouTube was eye wateringly expensive and lost billions. But google could see where things were going: a triple trend of falling storage costs, falling bandwidth and transmission costs (I’m trying to dig up a link I read years ago about this but google search has gotten so shit that I can’t find it).

It was similar for Asic miners for Bitcoin. Given enough demand, specialised, lower cost hardware specially for LLMs will emerge.

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

#453

Post by Levitz »

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…

I wholeheartedly second this. This article seems to me to be one important, small piece of text to read. It might very well end up somewhere in a history book someday.

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

#454

Post by jjoonathan »

titzer wrote: post #419
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…

> It's going to be seamlessly integrated into every-day software. I...kinda don't want this? UIs have already changed in so many different fits, starts, waves, and cycles. I used to have skills. But I have no skills now. Nothing works like it used to. Yeah they were tricky to use but I cannot imagine that a murky AI interface is going to be any easier to use, and certainly impossible to master. Even if it is easier t…

It was a sad day when I realized I was systematically overinvesting in skills on churning technology and that my investments would never amortize. Suddenly my parents' stubborn unwillingness to bother learning anything technological made complete sense and I had to adjust my own patience threshold sharply downwards.

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

#455

Post by unicornmama »

baryphonic wrote: post #447
unicornmama wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google makes almost all its money from search. These platforms are all there to reinforce its search monopoly. ChatGPT has obsoleted search. ChatGPT will do to Google search what the Internet did to public libraries - make them mostly irrelevant.

How has ChatGPT obsoleted search, when hallucination and the token limits are major problems? It's (sort of) obviated search for certain kinds of queries engineers make, but not normies. I say sort of, because IMO it's pretty bad at spitting out accurate (or even syntactically correct) code for any nontrivial problem. I have to give it lots of corrections, and often it will just invent new code that also is broken in…

I've replaced almost all my usage of Google Search with ChatGPT. The only reason's I've had to use Google search is to look up current news, and do some fact checking. In my experience, GPT-4 rarely provides incorrect results. This includes things like asking for recipes, food recommendations, clarifying what food is safe to eat when pregnant, how to drain my dog tricks, translating documents, explaining terminology from finance, understanding different kinds of whiskey, etc.

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

#456

Post by throwaway675309 »

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.

Generate the following picture in mid journey: "A school of dolphins spanking a mermaid with their flukes."

A 1000 V-rolls won't get you there. For something like this control net combined with inpainting is indispensable. Not to mention the excessively heavy handed censorship in MJ.

Midjourney excels in overall quality, but it completely falls down if you have an actual complex vision.

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

#457

Post by Levitz »

davidguetta wrote: post #89
cube2222 wrote: post #19

FWIW I posted Simon's summary because it's what I encountered first, but here's the leaked document itself[0]. Some snippets for folks who came just for the comments: > While our models still hold a slight edge in terms of quality, the gap is closing astonishingly quickly. Open-source models are faster, more customizable, more private, and pound-for-pound more capable. They are doing things with $100 and 13B params t…

Seems to be the Open Source who is the real winner overall.. After OpenAI became basically ClosedAI it's an excellent news

I'm not sure? Placing ethics constraints on a company under a capitalist system is hard. Placing them on open source is impossible.

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

#458

Post by MacsHeadroom »

Kuinox wrote: post #363
eulers_secret wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you use the web interface (oobabooga), then training a LoRa is as easy as clicking the "training" tab, keeping all the defaults, and giving it a flat text file of your data. The defaults are sane enough to not begin undermining any instruction tuning too much. Takes 3-5 hours on a 3080 for 7B, 4bit model (and ~1KWh). So far I've trained 3: 2 on the entire text of ASOIAF (converted from e-books) and 1 on the Harry…

Used 3090 are getting really cheaps on the second hand market. Then if you only need VRAM, the Tesla M40 are even cheaper at 100€ per unit, which has 24GB of VRAM.

The M40 does not support 4bit, so it's basically useless for LLMs.

The P40 24GB is only $200, supports 4bit, and is about 80% the speed of a 3090 (surprisingly) for LLM purposes.

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

#459

Post by unraveller »

ngngngng wrote: post #348
sdenton4 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just gotta get to the point where we can just ask the model to code the wrapper we want to use it with...

Any wrapper that needs writing speaks to a gap in the AI's current capabilities. I just don't see why or how I would put man-hours into trying to close that gap when a future model could eclipse my work at any time.

you've got future frostbite

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

#460

Post by patmorgan23 »

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…

OpenAI=Microsoft for all intents and purposes.

Microsoft has a stake in OpenAI and has integrated into Azure, Bing and Microsoft 365.

Post reply on HN