[HN Gopher] OpenAI is in talks for tender offer that would value...
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI is in talks for tender offer that would value it at $29B
Author : EMM_386
Score : 110 points
Date : 2023-01-05 20:27 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| magic_man wrote:
| Does Elon still have stake in it?
| bink wrote:
| He had to completely disconnect from OpenAI due to the conflict
| of interest with Tesla AI.
| doutunlined wrote:
| No wonder it succeeded.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| lol - tesla, spacex, etc didnt succeed ? what planet are
| you living on?
| fieldcny wrote:
| Life is a marathon, not a sprint. Let's see how many of
| those are around when we actually go through a full
| business cycle. No company started since 2003 has really
| been through a real downturn. 2007/2008 was limited in
| its blast radius and the fed just threw money
| everywhere...
| rockemsockem wrote:
| So 20 years for Tesla and 21 years for SpaceX is a
| sprint? What amount of time is a marathon? Facebook was
| founded in 2004, Google in 1998, are they still just
| sprinting?
| tluyben2 wrote:
| It is hip on Twitter to say he just bought it all (with
| daddy's money is even better to note) and knows nothing.
| As in: without getting free money he cannot succeed, only
| break. Link to an image of collapsing Tesla price.
|
| It's boring; chatgpt is great or skynet and either Musk
| is god or Musk is worthless is most of my Twitter
| timeline.
| aliqot wrote:
| it's great, but it's also skynet's latest iteration.
| let's not kid ourselves while we're blinded by the new
| shiny.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| Let's not kid ourselves. Boring mass surveillance
| dystopia powered by fancy curve fitting algorithms is not
| going to be anything like Skynet.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Algorithmic dragnets running over all communications
| technology, every human carrying a microphone everywhere
| that they don't have control over, and walking killer
| robots sound very much like Skynet. The big difference is
| that it won't be run by an overarching AI, but by the
| grandchildren of the people who own everything _now._
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| I don't know how rich Musk's dad is, but even if he was a
| billionaire, turning a billion into combined $1T+
| marketcap companies is an incredible achievement.
| tluyben2 wrote:
| Yes, but many of course think they would do equally well
| or better. And then many others are just trolling.
| consumer451 wrote:
| To be a bit more specific, I recall the separation happening
| because Musk poached Karpathy from OpenAI, which was against
| an agreement.
| metadat wrote:
| Musk impregnated an OpenAI board member last year [0]. What
| kind of separation is that?
|
| [0] https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/7/23198199/elon-musk-
| childre...
| Jabbles wrote:
| _some investors have expressed skepticism that the company can
| generate meaningful revenue from the technology_
|
| Would anyone like to speculate as to how they could?
| berkle4455 wrote:
| The tech bubble has a ways to deflate still
| pessimizer wrote:
| But tbf, language models/deep learning (and their near-future
| improvements) are real, practical technologies with pretty
| unlimited applications i.e. not bitcoin. Buying in at this
| semi-early stage is going to pay off massively and
| effortlessly, really the only challenge is to win a bidding war
| without being saddled with so much debt that you go bankrupt
| before you become an institution.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| How long until we see 100% custom generated online ads? For $29B
| valuation, that should be a WordPress plug-in.
| EGreg wrote:
| Oh great. And whoever buys OpenAI could do a lot of nefarious
| things for profit...
|
| Who remembers fogbugz fondly?
| laluser wrote:
| Did you read the article? It's an investment round...
| greatpostman wrote:
| Funny that a relatively small highly competent company like
| openai has created a stir that none of the big companies could.
| The 10x engineer theory is alive and well. A tale as old as time,
| large "prestigious" corporations incapable of innovating,
| probably due to management being unwilling to cannabalize their
| own jobs and knowledge _cough_ google _cough_
| transcriptase wrote:
| The odds were truly stacked against this scrappy group of well-
| connected billionaires, supported by the largest tech companies
| in Silicon Valley, able to hire the top talent in the world,
| originally touted as a non-profit that would democratize AI
| instead of gate-keeping it for the profit/benefit of the
| aforementioned.
|
| At least they didn't say "sike" as soon as the tech was good
| enough to monetize and pivot to being a for-profit tech company
| in itsel- oh.
| greatpostman wrote:
| Agree they had an unlimited budget and hired true top talent.
| But my point still stands, none of the big companies are
| spinning up a group of 200 people in a new org and releasing
| game changing products. They can only do it by funding
| external groups. Facebooks whole business model was hiring
| expensive engineers that are good at executing and just
| copying any new competitors product.
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| So what's your point exactly? First OpenAI has 10x
| engineers that Google doesn't, now Google has the 10x
| engineers, as you acknowledged you know OpenAI used Google
| Brain's trsnsformer architecture, but it just isn't
| productising fast enough for you? You do realize OpenAI
| hasn't made a dime yet, right? So your so called 10x dream
| is just time to market? Not inovation, or releasing a real
| product?
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Google has their own gpt AI, it's just not released to the
| public.
| greatpostman wrote:
| Exactly, management is still riding the gravy train and
| won't risk their now obsolete business model
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| You do realize Google relaeses more products than anyone,
| right? (In fact, too many.) But with just an AI chatbot,
| there really isn't much of a product in it's current
| state. But lets say there is this massive product that
| Google is hiding, I'm really struggling to understand how
| Google releasing it risks their "now obsolete business
| model." I mean, what exactly is your claim here? Google
| has this killer product, but they aren't releasing it and
| putting ads on it because... they want to let someone
| else do it? But they _are_ still publishing the very
| research that will obsolete thier business model at no
| charge?
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| Amazing points. The day of the dorm-room student billionaire
| is already over. This said, GP's comment has some value. If
| we take "relatively small company" to mean number of
| employees (although this wasn't made clear) then there is
| some truth to the idea that a new, unencumbered company can
| do more than an established one. But I feel GP is minimizing
| Microsoft, Google and Nvidia's contributions to ML research,
| and perhaps overplaying OpenAI's role in pitting it against
| other players when clearly everyone is building on each
| other's result. GPT uses a transformer architecture, which
| was created by Google Brain, and the first GPT paper alone
| cites 71 other papers, each, in turn, citing their own...
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > The 10x engineer theory is alive and well.
|
| > due to management being unwilling to cannabalize their own
| jobs
|
| Sounds like a 0.5x engineer could still have produced the
| desired output if the alternative is a manager that resisted
| change. Was it incredible engineers, or bad managers? Both?
| nfRfqX5n wrote:
| But the big companies have infinitely more data, which will be
| more useful in the long run
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| None of the current crop of big companies are being led by
| founder-CEOs - except for Meta. They're all being led by
| manager-CEOs.
|
| Manager-CEOs, historically, don't have the stakes, the
| vision, or the sheer pull to cannibalize $100B existing
| business lines with a brand new, untested product.
|
| Big Tech's bigness will be its biggest liability. A chatGPT-
| like tool, for instance, competes against Google's search
| products. And Google can't monetize it with 10+ ads on every
| page.
|
| Google et al will dawdle and hem and haw and watch nimbler
| competitors take away market share. Tale as old as time.
| greatpostman wrote:
| Actually it turned out to be the opposite, vanilla data
| scraped from the internet is feeding these models
| spiderice wrote:
| How is that the opposite? Big tech companies have all the
| vanilla data scraped from the internet, plus WAY more.
| Obviously both together will be more valuable than just the
| former.
| greatpostman wrote:
| A team of 10 talented engineers can scrape and store that
| data. It won't be perfect, but it's nowhere near the
| barrier that people assumed.
| lostmsu wrote:
| 1 engineer can handle that alone. The Pile is under 1TB.
| The tech is there to do it from a phone in under a month.
| romeros wrote:
| Sama is an Entrepreneur. Most major stable companies are
| typically run by the MBA types, Execs etc who won't be taking
| any major risks. Risking their reputation, rocking the boat aka
| Status Quo etc. If the risk doesn't pay off they are screwed.
| If they maintain the status quo it will take a long time before
| consequences catch up.
|
| That's why Elon, Zuck, Steve Jobs etc make major singular
| decisions without much bureaucracy standing in their way.
| barrkel wrote:
| They have less reputation to risk. Big tech and so on can't put
| out AI prototypes as easily without ending up on the front page
| of NYT when it comes out with some egregious learned biases
| around race, sexism, Nazis, and so on.
| greatpostman wrote:
| I find this very hard to believe. Microsoft is also working
| on integrating chatgpt. But chatgpt itself probably could
| never have been built within Microsoft. Managers gate keeping
| their own jobs won't allow it
| matwood wrote:
| How quickly we forget Tay.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-
| ch...
| ur-whale wrote:
| >probably due to management being unwilling to cannabalize
| their own jobs and knowledge
|
| Disagree.
|
| The reason Google does not innovate anymore wether AI or
| elsewhere:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0UXIFoCbXog
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| It's less about engineering ability. For sure, OpenAI has
| phenomenal technical talent, but large tech co's do too, and in
| fact, many of them have internal developments that match (maybe
| exceed) GPT3 / ChatGPT.
|
| It's more about organizational bureaucracy, innovator's
| dilemma, organizational priority, risk tolerance given the
| scrutiny they're under, etc.
| mccorrinall wrote:
| > internal developments that match (maybe exceed) GPT3
|
| Had a funny google prompt today which echoed wrong results by
| their ML model:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=single%20neighbor%20country
|
| :D
| matwood wrote:
| > It's more about organizational bureaucracy, innovator's
| dilemma, organizational priority, risk tolerance given the
| scrutiny they're under, etc.
|
| Agree. Being on the right side of all those items also
| attracts more top talent.
| htrp wrote:
| > It's more about organizational bureaucracy, innovator's
| dilemma, organizational priority, risk tolerance given the
| scrutiny they're under, etc.
|
| The paypal argument
| p1esk wrote:
| You do realize that Google invented the transformer
| architecture, and OpenAI has simply scaled it up?
| greatpostman wrote:
| Yeah I am completely aware. They invented it and search got
| even more useless.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| I fail to see how that is an argument against what the parent
| comment said. Google invented transformers and OpenAI made it
| into something compelling. More compelling than what Google
| has done with it.
| p1esk wrote:
| Google invented the engine and OpenAI took that engine and
| built a car. Both deserve credit.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| I agree with that, but ultimately how the transformer
| architecture is used in products is what's going to
| change things and create new value for humanity.
| endisneigh wrote:
| The difference is that OpenAI is well, open and usable and
| Google's offerings are not.
| albntomat0 wrote:
| It seems to me that such a split could be because OpenAI
| has decided that ChatGPT needs to be public to get hype,
| partners, investment, training data, etc. Google many not
| need or want those things.
|
| It's definitely possible that ChatGPT is way better than
| LaMDA, but I wouldn't take the availability of a public
| demo as proof of that.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Google apparently has a bot that can put ChatGPT to shame,
| it's just not released to the public.
| lost_tourist wrote:
| This sounds like another twitter deal; overvalued by a lot.
| big_blind wrote:
| Paywall: https://archive.is/G9M4E
|
| It's still crazy to me how rapidly AI has grown in mainstream
| popularity and relevance in the past year. Curious to see this
| new market develop now with competitors like You.com's YouChat
| coming onto the scene.
| kats wrote:
| Lol professional BS artists.
| minimaxir wrote:
| It's funny how "ChatGPT Creator" is now more recognizeable/SEO-
| friendly than "OpenAI".
| cinntaile wrote:
| I wonder how they come up with these valuations for deep learning
| companies? Some other company always seems to be able to pretty
| much replicate the performance a few weeks or months later, what
| is the moat here?
| htrp wrote:
| Usually its about the network effects....
|
| OpenAI can claim the most usage and therefore the ability to
| see the newest language model tricks.
| japanman425 wrote:
| Can wait to pay for factually wrong chat not answers instead of
| getting them for free!
| endisneigh wrote:
| How much money does OpenAI make I wonder?
| ttobbaybbob wrote:
| from the openai charter (https://openai.com/charter/): "Our
| primary fiduciary duty is to humanity."
|
| i wonder how committed they currently are to ^ and what taking
| external investment would/will do to that commitment. Echoes of
| "dont be evil"
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| This is something you always say as start-up. It gets you good
| pr and possibly cheaper and idealistic engineers. Then you
| struggle towards your "mission" until you can sell out when the
| numbers get big enough. No one will not sell out when there are
| billions on the table.
| lelandfe wrote:
| Microsoft invested in them years back:
| https://openai.com/blog/microsoft/
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| Honestly they move to be acquired. AI is destined to be the
| future of tech, but it's going to be the data that decides who
| wins. Once an algorithm is out in the wild, anyone with money can
| copy, train, and deploy it IF they have the data.
|
| OpenAI has done some amazing RnD, but it is the big tech firms
| have all the data. Acquisition by a company like Microsoft is
| probably the most likely thing that will happen.
|
| Sidenote: If a basic multiplayer vector graphics editor like
| Figma is worth 20 Billion, OpenAI can get a much higher price
| IMO!
| Yhippa wrote:
| I was thinking about this. You take something like ChatGPT,
| point it at all your company's documentation, and boom, instant
| customer service. Pretty darn good customer service based on my
| experience. Feels like it will instantly invalidate all
| existing customer service chatbots once this propagates.
| nullsense wrote:
| What about it confidently just making plausible sounding but
| false things up? That doesn't make for good customer
| service...
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| They're very aware of that. I expect GPT-4 will improve on
| it, especially given the rumours about it being a big
| improvement over GPT-3/chatGPT.
|
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1601731295792414720
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Assuming, of course, good documentation, which is probably
| the hard part.
| elil17 wrote:
| Just point it at your code to generate documentation (not
| now, but that's the endgame)
| [deleted]
| endisneigh wrote:
| Lol, much easier said than done.
| hooande wrote:
| is any company doing this or something similar right now? I
| really don't think it works this way, but I'd love to see an
| example of how I'm wrong.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Tbh, people have tried and made many tools like Figma, but I'm
| yet to see anything that comes even close to Figma's speed.
| There's some incredible engineering under the hood.
| preommr wrote:
| Can you give some examples of other tools that you've found
| to be slow?
|
| I am also curious how you'd rank the performance of something
| like "https://w00dn.github.io/papergrapher/"
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| Figma was a strategic acquisition. You can't directly compare
| companies for acquisition.
|
| Microsoft has invested in OpenAI and has a deal with them,
| Google has their own algos, Meta has their own algos. Who would
| acquire OpenAI and why would they pay so much? It seems like it
| would mostly be an acquihire and maybe getting ahead by 1-2yrs.
|
| Is that really worth >$30B, especially given that interest
| rates are no longer 0%?
|
| I also don't think your point about big tech firms having all
| the data makes sense. The transformer architecture that GPT is
| based on has been around since 2017. How did OpenAI create and
| scale GPT if they didn't have the data?
|
| I think OpenAI is going to try and be the go-to platform for
| new AI companies rather than looking for an acquisition.
| preommr wrote:
| > If a basic multiplayer vector graphics editor like Figma is
| worth 20 Billion, OpenAI can get a much higher price IMO
|
| Figma is only worth that much because of Adobe's incompetence.
|
| Companies in the same space as OpenAI are much more capable.
| allUrd4t4 wrote:
| [dead]
| STELLANOVA wrote:
| I honestly think that what you are describing is just a part of
| transition and that data will stop being interesting anymore
| but actual algorithms and way the data is consumed. Similar
| thing happened with the books centuries ago. Not everyone had
| access to the books and only wealthy and church had control
| under it, knowledge was not accessible like it's today, yet
| that didn't change anything once it become accessible, what
| matters almost always is what you do with it.
|
| I was always wondering if we would progress faster in many
| ML/AI stuff if big companies exchanged data they collected (raw
| data). Take self driving stuff for example, dozens of companies
| spending tons of resources just to collect the data (that is
| btw public - streets, other vehicles, publicly exposed objects,
| people...). Imagine if they all exchanged raw data, we would be
| years faster in development and they would actually focus on
| things that matter (actual ML/AI models)...
| zzz345345 wrote:
| > Once an algorithm is out in the wild,
|
| but OpenAI is not open
|
| It's a bit like the "PATRIOT" Act that isnt patriotic.
| dmitryminkovsky wrote:
| I was with you until "basic" :) Figma is an amazing beast!
|
| Also your comment seems to correctly throw into question the
| sustained long-term value of OpenAI. Figma will undoubtedly
| keep delivering value for years to come.
| fishtoaster wrote:
| I feel like Figma and OpenAI are apples and oranges.
|
| Figma is a really strong _business_. You can show spreadsheets
| and charts to make a pretty convincing case that it 'll make a
| lot of money. It's not terribly risky.
|
| OpenAI is really strong tech without much product market fit.
| It's got a ton of mindshare, but that's about it. Buying them
| is making a big bet that you can somehow turn that into a big
| business.
|
| So one is a low-risk, medium-reward buy, and the other is a
| high-risk, high-reward buy. Even if OpenAI ultimately changes
| the world a lot more, its expected value _now_ is close(ish) to
| Figma 's.
| STELLANOVA wrote:
| Other way to look at it is that you look at Figma as a
| product and OpenAI as a platform. What you will do with the
| platform is up to you. It's not easy to productize something
| like that and get good revenue - it's much riskier BUT if you
| already have many products in your portfolio (like MSFT) it's
| actually really good fit as you may enhance your existing
| product line...
| marvin wrote:
| > OpenAI is really strong tech without much product market
| fit. It's got a ton of mindshare, but that's about it. Buying
| them is making a big bet that you can somehow turn that into
| a big business.
|
| That's the YouTube argument. "Yeah, everyone uses it but it's
| not like they're able to make money", stated about a company
| that's iterating its products faster than viable competition
| can react. In this case regarding one of a few actors in the
| world that can plausibly access the computing resources
| required to build on the bleeding edge.
|
| They've made something people want; they'll be successful.
| devmunchies wrote:
| > OpenAI is really strong tech without much product market
| fit
|
| I wouldn't say that. There are a lot of companies making
| money on it already, there's definitely a market for it. They
| just aren't monetizing. It's more like how "growth startups"
| acquired users at a loss before turning on the monetization
| engine.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| how much is early adopter exploration?
| devmunchies wrote:
| I meant there are other companies who are building their
| entire companies (not just features) on OpenAI's products
| and those companies have revenue. Been going on for a
| couple years. I was at one such startup.
|
| They are kind of like a Stripe or Twilio in that sense
| (in their current form)
| luckydata wrote:
| Which companies are making money on it? I'm talking billion
| dollars.
|
| None.
| devmunchies wrote:
| How would we know? they'd still be private. A billion in
| revenue is like a public company 3-5 years after IPO. The
| aggregate probably is making quite a bit, though.
| WheelsAtLarge wrote:
| Chatgpt is the first mover but I doubt it will be around for
| long. Competition is starting and history has shown that other
| players eventually find a profitable business model and leave the
| first mover behind.
|
| Chatgpt is good but as soon as there's something better people
| will shift over very quickly.
|
| One thing it lacks is reliability. You can't trust its answers
| all the time. I suspect the next goal is to create reliable
| expert systems that people can trust. I see a future where
| companies will buy access to a reliable expert ai that will help
| their workers do their job.
|
| Eventually there will be so many expert systems that they can be
| tied together to create what seems like super ai. It won't be a
| thinking machine but it won't matter. It will be so realistic
| that people will believe it's a sentient machine. I bet it will
| happen in less than 30 yrs.
|
| Imagine a company like AWS renting their AI system to do a
| specific function. It's going to be interesting.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _Chatgpt is the first mover but I doubt it will be around for
| long._
|
| Upstarts have been at chat bots for a good part of the entire
| decade (albeit in a different setting, even BigTech had a swing
| at it: Amazon Alexa, Google Home, Apple Siri). ChatGPT isn't
| the first mover, but rather something that has captured the
| imagination of a large section of early adopters.
| luma wrote:
| Comparing ChatGPT to Siri, Alexa, etc is like comparing the
| old Windows Mobile to the first iPhone when it came out. Same
| thing, kinda, but the implementation is so far beyond the
| existing offerings that it feels like a new thing altogether.
| onion2k wrote:
| GPT4 will replace it, which is also from OpenAI.
| jchanimal wrote:
| It's probably important for us to raise the alarm that machines
| cannot be sentient.
| version_five wrote:
| I think "AI" is way overhyped.
|
| That said, because of the competition driving the value of the
| _technology_ down, with open source versions and constant
| iterations and improvements, I think the value will be in
| having some "enterprise" version and associated relationships
| that make it friendly / easy to buy for large businesses. The
| Bing partnership and whole Microsoft angle suggest Open AI is
| in a good spot to be an enterprise provider
| screye wrote:
| OpenAI has 3 unique advantages that others don't.
|
| Namely : Sam Altman, Microsoft and self-fulfilling prophecies.
|
| 1. Sam Altman - OpenAI does relationships like no other
| company. They are getting doors opened to data that others
| (even big companies) simply do not have access to. having
| Altman at the helm has a lot to do with it. He is also the
| reason OpenAI is arguably second only to Tesla in terms of
| being a self-marketing behemoth with no real marketing budget.
| The super-fans do all the talking for you.
|
| 2. Microsoft - Whatever the fine-print of their relationship
| is, despite not owning OpenAI, Microsoft is throwing its entire
| weight behind them. This means that the entities who can
| compete on compute and endless money supply are Google and
| Amazon. The fact that Microsoft obscures its relationship with
| OpenAI, also means that OpenAI gets to move with the sort of
| agility and goodwill, that something branded MSFT/AMZN/GOOG
| simply cannot.
|
| 3. Self-fulfilling prophecies - These models get better with
| human in the loop (HITL) feedback. OpenAI is the one getting
| the most human in the loop feedback due to being first movers
| and that lets them make better models. The better models mean
| that users keep coming back to OpenAI to give more HITL
| feedback.
|
| (This is more so true with NLP than Vision. Vision has a
| healthy set of competitors across the board)
| consumer451 wrote:
| > 3. Self-fulfilling prophecies
|
| This is a bit off-topic, but I have been thinking that if
| LLMs lead to near AGI, then we are indeed doomed to an AI
| takeover as there is ton of human-generated stories about
| that to learn from. Maybe we should start writing a lot more
| tech-utopian stories to improve our chances? /half-serious
| nullsense wrote:
| >as there is ton of human-generated stories about that to
| learn from.
|
| Oh snap. Hoisted by our own petard!
| consumer451 wrote:
| I nervously laugh about it, but ever since this occurred
| to me I get the feeling that it's almost too predictable,
| poetic, and plainly dumb-as-a-species _not_ to happen.
| nullsense wrote:
| It's an amusing insight. You've got me nervously laughing
| about it too.
|
| How do the machines know what tastywheat really tasted
| like? My guess is they read the script for The Matrix and
| learned that accurately mimicking the tastes of foods
| would be necessary to get the mind to accept the
| illusion.
| gregw2 wrote:
| I've said it before, also half-seriously
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33953367)... it
| doesn't help that our best thinkers and engineers are
| trying ensure an AI passes the Turing Test, but the Turing
| Test as a goal inherently is about an AI deceiving human
| perceptions as to its nature and intentions and awareness,
| rather than generating/purveying truth (or beauty or
| justice or the good!)
|
| It was a clever idea of Turing's to sidestep the definition
| of intelligence (and truth), but not necessarily a wise one
| for our society to spend billions of dollars and our best
| minds to prioritize!
|
| Be careful about your goal function!!
| permo-w wrote:
| hey multivac, can we put the stars back together?
|
| "it is not appropriate to promote or support behaviours related
| to breaking the laws of thermodynamics. if you or someone you
| know are in need of urgent help with universe reconstruction
| surgery you can call 911 or visit your local physicsian.
|
| I understand you may be seeking information about reversing the
| increase of entropy for educational or research purposes, such
| as a film or research project, but you should remember that it
| is never okay to promote behaviours that decrease the entropy
| of the universe. There are many resources available to help
| with the inevitable results of the passage of time, including
| support groups, therapy, and medication
|
| I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you
| have any other questions or need further assistance."
| fieldcny wrote:
| Can't wait to see it vacuum my floor without smearing dog poo
| everywhere, falling down the stairs or getting stuck between
| chairs.
|
| Futurists have been predicting this stuff forever, we live in
| amazing times, but it's never what it "could be".
| vagabund wrote:
| Microsoft's willingness to run ChatGPT at a 6 figure loss daily
| is a strong signal of the value OpenAI's researchers place on
| RLHF to make the next leap -- both in raw capabilities and
| alignment. If they're proven correct, which it's likely they
| are, then the first mover advantage runs unusually deep, given
| that the feedback-from-usage flywheel is integral to the core
| tech. Google could, of course, deploy more broadly overnight if
| they chose, but their positioning seems to indicate more
| interest in solving hard science problems with AI than with
| building human-aligned productivity tools and assistants. The
| market is broad enough for both, and the latter more readily
| aligns with Microsoft's business, so I expect the trends to
| continue. No one aside from Google stands a chance at making up
| OpenAI's lead.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > but their positioning seems to indicate more interest in
| solving hard science problems with AI than with building
| human-aligned productivity tools and assistants.
|
| Except they literally have a product called "Assistant" that
| uses language processing today. Sure gAssistant doesn't use a
| LLM to generate the response... but instead it uses _factual
| data from the internet_ to generate a response. I imagine
| they could easily roll out a LLM if they wanted, but surely
| most queries are just smart-home and weather queries that
| don't need it.
|
| And they have AI infusion into gmail, Google docs, etc. this
| is where the actual value of a LLM will live. Chat GPT is
| cool, but the biggest uses of LLM will surely come from
| "assistive" tech built into these existing products. Why
| write a document when you can write an outline and the facts
| and Google docs will write it for you? We're already getting
| there with e-mail response autocompletes.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > Imagine a company like AWS renting their AI system to do a
| specific function. It's going to be interesting.
|
| This is where I see the money being made. Offer the LEGO bricks
| startups use to build successful niche products, then steal the
| most profitable ones.
|
| Amazon Basics Medical Coding AI.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| ClosedAI
| clarge1120 wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| I will be surprised if even GPT-3 (with training data), not to
| mention GPT-4-5-6 or 7, is made available to the masses.
| There's too much potential for disruption.
|
| Also, I'd love to be surprised.
| [deleted]
| albntomat0 wrote:
| What is the relative difficult of each required part in training
| GPT3/ChatGPT? E.g. where is OpenAI's moat, and how wide is it?
|
| Is it in model design (now published), data set, engineering
| needed to train it, cost of hardware needed to train it, cost of
| HLRF on top of GPT3 to make ChatGPT?
| mccorrinall wrote:
| It's easier to train on all github repos if you own github.
| There is no real alternative to codex.
|
| Stuff like GPT3 is trying to be recreated, but even the
| eleuther AI guys only collected like 800GB training data, which
| is much less than what OpenAI has (iirc around 45TB). And
| apparently their data is very high quality. EleutherAI is
| pretty much one of the few big model open source competitors
| with GPT-Neox etc.
|
| Plus openai has great branding.
| albntomat0 wrote:
| Interesting, thanks for sharing!
|
| I wonder how LaMDA compares performance wise to ChatGPT. I
| definitely understand why training on Github is an advantage,
| but I'd expect Google to also be great at getting a good
| dataset, across the range of things they'd be interested in.
| tootie wrote:
| Also how the hell do they make money? They began life as a
| nonprofit and AFAIK have no commerical product.
| albntomat0 wrote:
| Poking around their website, OpenAI sells API access to
| DALL-E, and a range of language models. Github Copilot also
| uses an OpenAI ML model.
|
| Their valuation comes from expectations of the value of
| future iterations of those.
| Jabbles wrote:
| I think it is an interesting point of comparison that DeepMind
| was acquired for $400M in 2014
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/google-deepmind-idUSL2N0L102...
| aliqot wrote:
| 2014 was before things got all willynilly to the degree they
| are now.
| version_five wrote:
| Is there any evidence it was a good investment at that price?
| As I understand they are a big money sink and haven't done
| anything commercially valuable
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| It was a good investment because Google doesn't want to see a
| switch away from their cash-cow search ads business model,
| therefore controlling and limiting the biggest competitor is
| a good investment.
| lelandfe wrote:
| I can see Med-PaLM becoming a valuable product, but I'm not
| aware of them recouping the cost yet, no.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| OpenAI seems pretty different to DeepMind. DeepMind was
| exclusively a research lab, whereas OpenAI has been
| productizing their research.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/3xntP
| alphabetting wrote:
| Google acquiring Deepmind in 2014 for ~$600M was such a steal in
| hindsight.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-05 23:00 UTC)