Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
semianalysis.com
Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
1–10 of 1001 posts
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#2I think YouTube is a damn fine moat.
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#3I've been using Stable Diffusion to generate cover images for the music I release & produce for others. It's a massive time saver compared to comping together the release art using image editing software, and a lot cheaper than working with artists, which just doesn't make sense financially as an independent musician.
It's a little bit difficult to get what you want out of the models, but I find them very useful! And while the output resolution might be quite low, things are improving & AI upscaling also helps a lot.
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#4This is such an interesting read. It makes a compelling case, though how the likes of Google should react feels less like an adjustment and more like a revolution.
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#5Cringe, 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!
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#6I've been using Stable Diffusion to generate cover images for the music I release & produce for others. It's a massive time saver compared to comping together the release art using image editing software, and a lot cheaper than working with artists, which just doesn't make sense financially as an independent musician. It's a little bit difficult to get what you want out of the models, but I find them very useful! And…
> artist whose domain has not yet been disrupted by AI fires artist in favor of AI
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#7Cringe, 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!
Is there any reason to think that zero-shot learning and better models/more effient AI won’t drastically reduce those costs over time?
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#8I think that analogy is flawed to try to undercut OpenAI’s lead. The reason it’s flawed is that the search business is really lucrative and OpenAI is trying to completely disrupt Google’s business there. So while the AI isn’t a moat, establishing a lead in search is because you obviously will use that to inject ads in the commercial space and capture the market.
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#9Great read, but I don't agree with all of these points. OpenAI's technological moat is not necessarily meaningful in a context where the average consumer is starting to recognize ChatGPT as a brand name.
Furthermore, models which fine-tune LLMs are still dependent on the base model's quality. Having a much higher quality base model is still a competitive advantage in scenarios where generalizability is an important aspect of the use case.
Thus far, Google has failed to integrate LLMs into their products in a way that adds value. But they do have advantages which could be used to gain a competitive lead: - Their crawling infrastructure could allow their to generate better training datasets, and update models more quickly. - Their TPU hardware could allow them to train and fine-tune models more quickly. - Their excellent research divisions could give them a head start with novel architectures.
If Google utilizes those advantages, they could develop a moat in the future. OpenAI has access to great researchers, and good crawl data through Bing, but it seems plausible to me that 2 or 3 companies in this space could develop sizeable moats which smaller competitors can't overcome.
Re: Google “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI”
#10Doesn't the sheer cost of training create a moat on its own?