[dead]
Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#992[dead]
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#993[dead]
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#994[dead]
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#995[dead]
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#996The 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…
There are no guarantees about who will or won't own the future, just the observation that disruptive technology makes everyone's fate more volatile. Big tech companies like Google have a lot of in-built advantages, but they're notoriously bad at executing on pivots which fundamentally alter or commoditize their core business. If that wasn't true we'd all be using Microsoft phones (or heck, IBM PCs AND phones). In Goo…
1995 lot of people
We’re using the internet. It was made of dial up modems , terminal servers , BBS , AOL , IRC chat rooms , Alta vista search engine , emails , browser (probably Netscape or earlier can’t remember) … but yeah in 1995 lot of people were using it though much less than now , but not negligible.
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#997Earlier 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..…
GPT-4 is a must if tool using is your goal. GPT-3.5, I think it is mostly suitable for: 1. Quick documentation lookup for non-essential facts 2. Lightweight documents writing and rewriting 3. Translation Other use cases should go straightly to GPT-4
Ah, "tool using", the best of goals.
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#998Cringe, haven’t seen a single Open Source come even close to the ability of Bard, let alone ChatGPT. Seems like wishful thinking to think decentralized open source can beat centralized models that cost 100M+ to train!
From the article: "April 3, 2023 - Real Humans Can’t Tell the Difference Between a 13B Open Model and ChatGPT Berkeley launches Koala, a dialogue model trained entirely using freely available data. They take the crucial step of measuring real human preferences between their model and ChatGPT. While ChatGPT still holds a slight edge, more than 50% of the time users either prefer Koala or have no preference. Training C…
Exciting to see open source catching up, but seems to still be a big difference in factuality and common sense between ChatGPT and Koala. Eg:
Who built AlexNet on the ImageNet dataset?
ChatGPT: AlexNet was built by a team of researchers led by Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton at the University of Toronto. They entered the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) in 2012 and won by a large margin, revolutionizing the field of computer vision with their deep convolutional neural network architecture. The AlexNet architecture consisted of eight layers, including five convolutional layers, two fully connected layers, and a softmax output layer.
Koala: AlexNet was built by Google DeepMind, a London-based artificial intelligence laboratory. The ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) is an annual large-scale image and video dataset that was created for the ImageNet project by the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge, which is an annual competition for image and video analysis.
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#999Earlier 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…
I just want to add my $0.02 currently working at a games studio that is integrating AI generated art into our art pipelines. Midjourney definitely generates really high quality art based on simple prompts, but the inability to really customize the output basically kills its utility. We heavily use Stable Diffusion with specific models and ControlNet to get customizable and consistent results. Our artists also need to…
Really curious about the challenges you've been seeing as your art team's been trying to integrate AI generated art into your pipeline.
Excited by the potential for artists to accelerate their creative process with advances like ControlNet, but makes sense there's a lot frustrating about the process today.
Exploring tools that might help. If you might be interested in chatting, email me at tom@adobe.com. Thanks!
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#1000Earlier 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 Does being easier not influence whether it's better? I mean this in that for many of the ways AI art would be used, MJ already seems to be "good enough" at a lot of it. Secondarily: doesn't Midjourney's increased user base and increased ratings they get from users help it refine its model, thus meaning that "ease of use" creates a feedback loop with "quality of output" because m…
> Does being easier not influence whether it's better? I mean this in that for many of the ways AI art would be used, MJ already seems to be "good enough" at a lot of it.
> ...
> I'm asking real questions, not making a statement I believe in and just adding a question mark.
In my opinion, it is tedious to discuss whether Midjourney or Stable Diffusion is better.
Both are tools with their own strengths and weaknesses.
Midjourney
- Comparable to a ready-made consumer product.
- Easy to use and you get excellent results quickly.
- The feature set is limited. So you can't influence so well how the result should look like.
- Restrictions on what you can generate with it (gore, nudes).
- Fee required.
Stable Diffusion
- Comparable to a development kit. Technical, Difficult to use, different tools that you have to configure and use correctly.
- For excellent results you have to invest much more time.
- Extensive feature set (inpaining, outpaining, upscaling, ControlNet, many different models, LORAs, textual inversions). You can much better define how the result should look like.
- No restrictions on what you can generate.
- Free if you install it locally.