81–90 of 298 posts
For people more well versed in this space: does GPT / OpenAI more broadly have a meaningful moat? It seems like there will be a number of these models out there and this isn't as great as say Google's up-till-now advantage in search relevancy.
Beyond that, if it becomes built into the (MS) tools that people are using then convenience is going to be a very hard barrier for Google (or anyone else) to overcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this a wild cap? I'm not an expert but I am aware of private deals that are less than 10x for similar structures.
If they reach AGI, or more simply replace a chunk of workers with AIs, this isn't far fetched to reach these numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cap is 100x, so assuming Microsoft is investing billions in a current valuation of $29 billion as rumoured, the cap will only really come into place once OpenAI becomes the most valuable company in the world.
How does this cap work in practice? If I bought shares at $1 and someone wants to buy them from me at $200 what happens?
If they were to go public, rather than being purchased by Microsoft, I’d guess that this cap would go away. Wall Street isn’t know for caring about poor people.
Microsoft is handling the AI revolution extremely well. They see the potential brand damage that comes with a such a product, so they probably just hold less than 50% of the company, to be able to say "this is not us". Which then allows openAI to experiment and wow people, while google is anxious about showing 10% of its crazy AI capabilities to avoid potential PR disasters.
In theory, Google has an even better spin-off for AI (Deepmind). I think slowly Google is becoming more and more like IBM, a slow-moving giant that doesn't like risks.
And its well known, many news titles mention Deepmind alongside google, if not as "Google ai scientists".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's pure marketing and totally disingenuous. It's like being called OpenAI while nothing is open. It's interesting research done by terrible people.
These “terrible people” seem to have catapulted the world into a generative AI world. They genuinely believe they will build AGI and therefore becoming the world’s most valuable company is a natural consequence. Whether this is possible/probable is a different story, but I think a capped profit structure makes logical sense for the company that is aiming to create AGI. Would you want this technology instead in the ha…
I don't understand why they put this thin veneer on top of what they are doing. Maybe Thiel was burnt with the bad press surrounding Palantir and this is preventive damage control.
> In pursuit of our mission to ensure advanced AI benefits all of humanity, OpenAI remains a capped-profit company and is governed by the OpenAI non-profit. This structure allows us to raise the capital we need to fulfill our mission without sacrificing our core beliefs about broadly sharing benefits and the need to prioritize safety. All this time, I was entirely unaware of this.
I take this in the same vein as "Patagonia Founder Donates Company to Charity" and view it as a clever shell game.Mostly because Im cynical and have watched SV/VC game way too long to be healthy.
I'm less read-up on OpenAI. It does feel to me like they've diluted the original non-profit/openness mission to the point of it being an interesting historical quirk, rather than an ongoing, guiding focus.
For people more well versed in this space: does GPT / OpenAI more broadly have a meaningful moat? It seems like there will be a number of these models out there and this isn't as great as say Google's up-till-now advantage in search relevancy.
It seems like the fine tune dataset to go from GPT -> ChatGPT is pretty valuable, particularly because it is proprietary. Still, I agree with your characterization that we should see many similar models over time. As an example, see Deepmind’s Sparrow: https://www.deepmind.com/blog/building-safer-dialogue-agents
GPT ChatGPT: probably not. It's not hard for other big players to enter this space. It's mostly egg-on-face for Google that they haven't given that Google basically invented the model that OpenAI uses and has big versions internally. There's nothing fundamental stopping Google Docs from adding ChatGPT to their UI and getting way more consumer training data than OpenAI can get without a similar play, or for Apple to do something. Similar to what happened with mapping software, google/microsoft/azure & chinese equivs will all offer with similar competitiveness, and then complements like facebook/salesforce will do more OSS to compete against. That's already begun.
Copilot: The interesting proprietary advantage IMO is program synthesis. It's really enabled by Microsoft VSCode Github OpenAI. Without even doing any AI investments, the winner of this fight might be Gitlab, as Google/AWS/Saleforce/etc decide what to do. Before gitlab might have been a nice vehicle for shift-left sales (cloud hosting, security scans, ..), but program synthesis UIs can make Software 2.0 real.
> Azure’s unique architecture design has been crucial in delivering best-in-class performance and scale Is there something unique about Azure, which makes it well suited for AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cap is 100x, so assuming Microsoft is investing billions in a current valuation of $29 billion as rumoured, the cap will only really come into place once OpenAI becomes the most valuable company in the world.
How does this cap work in practice? If I bought shares at $1 and someone wants to buy them from me at $200 what happens?
2023 is the year of Bing, calling it now.
Say what you will about Google, they generally credit their sources. Yes, it's part of their advertising model, but it's still a Very Good Thing.
I hope that Google's plan is to release something that continues this model. If it's near as good at ChatGPT and strongly includes sources, it is the right future.