[HN Gopher] Microsoft strikes deal with Mistral in push beyond O...
___________________________________________________________________
Microsoft strikes deal with Mistral in push beyond OpenAI
Author : jmsflknr
Score : 400 points
Date : 2024-02-26 14:25 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ft.com)
| bhouston wrote:
| This is just a smart move by Satya Nadella after the non-standard
| drama that occurred with OpenAI a few months back where it nearly
| imploded and then didn't.
|
| You want both a backup for OpenAI as well as negotiating leverage
| if OpenAI gets too powerful and this achieves both.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| I totally agree it's also like the move where Microsoft is at
| least supporting Linux on their systems and cloud as not a
| backup but to just close you into their ecosystem . Honestly I
| could see Microsoft buying Huggingface.
| bhouston wrote:
| Yes, Microsoft doesn't have to pick the sole winner in AI,
| but rather they could just start eating the AI ecosystem bit
| by bit so that they win by default. It is what large players
| can do. May open themselves up to some scrutiny for too many
| acquisitions and reducing competition though, but that is a
| separate issue.
| lostemptations5 wrote:
| And they are used to that issue too. A long history of it.
| solardev wrote:
| "Microsoft recommends OpenAI as your default overlord. Did
| you know it can do everything your current AI can do,
| sometimes better, but always more profitably for us?
| [Switch now] [Ask me again in 30 seconds]"
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| This is how microsoft has been doing data for at least 10
| years (See databricks).
|
| Step 1: Get the industry leaders to be purchasable via
| Azure. Step 2: Slowly build your own clone and start
| stealing user share even though your offering is still
| worse.
| JimDabell wrote:
| I've had similar thoughts, Microsoft buying Huggingface would
| be very similar to them buying GitHub.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| Please, god, no. I can't think of two more antithetical
| companies.
| btown wrote:
| This has me thinking about the context behind the striking
| quote in https://www.theinformation.com/articles/how-
| microsoft-swallo... (May 2023, months before the OpenAI
| drama):
|
| > Nadella [in December 2022] abruptly cut off Lee
| midsentence, demanding to know how OpenAI had managed to
| surpass the capabilities of the AI project Microsoft's
| 1,500-person research team had been working on for decades.
| "OpenAI built this with 250 people," Nadella said, according
| to Lee, who is executive vice president and head of Microsoft
| Research. "Why do we have Microsoft Research at all?"
|
| > At the same time, even as the company began weaving OpenAI
| into the fabric of Microsoft's products, Nadella decided not
| to abort Microsoft's own research efforts in AI. During the
| tense exchange at the December meeting between the Microsoft
| CEO and Lee, other executives spoke up to defend the work of
| Microsoft's researchers, including Mikhail Parakhin, who
| oversees Microsoft's Bing search and Edge browser groups, Lee
| said. After grilling Lee in the meeting, Nadella called him
| privately, thanking him for the work Microsoft Research had
| done to understand and implement OpenAI's work in a way that
| passed muster for corporate customers. Nadella said he saw
| Lee's group as a "secret weapon."
|
| While this is entirely speculation, it's easy to imagine that
| there are many levels of PR magic going on here, to share a
| quote that on the surface feels "leaked" and "explosive" but,
| among investors and clients who read beyond the (very good)
| paywall, actually shores up a narrative that Microsoft has a
| capability that significantly augments OpenAI's, and allows
| the existence of MSR to become headline news without even
| needing a product release.
|
| The Mistral deal feels like yet another step in this
| direction. Microsoft is not afraid of seeming "messy" in the
| press as long as it can control the narrative around its
| value-add to customers in the context of its partnerships. By
| contrast, the rest of FAANG's more consumer-facing
| positioning makes it a lot harder for them to maneuver in a
| similar way.
| karolist wrote:
| > Nadella [in December 2022] abruptly cut off Lee
| midsentence, demanding to know how OpenAI had managed to
| surpass the capabilities of the AI project Microsoft's
| 1,500-person research team had been working on for decades.
| "OpenAI built this with 250 people," Nadella said,
| according to Lee, who is executive vice president and head
| of Microsoft Research. "Why do we have Microsoft Research
| at all?"
|
| The answer to that is till Google released the Attention is
| All You Need paper in 2017 there were no breakthroughs
| allowing models as we have now to be built, OpenAI being a
| small and nible team picked up on which direction the wind
| is blowing with LLMs and quickly brought a product to
| market whilst MS just did what corps do - move slowly (same
| for Google etc).
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Microsoft research has also been not solely devoted in AI
| I have seen much in quantum computing and programming
| language research and general computer science .
| probably_satan wrote:
| They did that because they can't compete with Linux and had
| no relevancy in the tech world outside of providing business
| users with terrible software
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| I guess it has a cost, though? I presume OpenAI didn't like
| this move. If that's the case, what might be the consequences?
| consumer451 wrote:
| Just to play this out, what possible moves would OpenAI make
| at this point that they wouldn't have until this happened?
|
| Altman is out there trying to raise ridiculous sums to get
| away from Azure, didn't he make the first move here?
| bhouston wrote:
| I think the main move would be some type of true AGI that
| leads to a hard takeoff scenario, but it isn't clear we are
| close to that or not.
|
| Basically something that is more than just another bump in
| the scorecard for GPT 5 over GPT 4. Otherwise it is still
| just a horse race between relatively interchangeable GPT
| engines.
| kibwen wrote:
| There are no consequences for Microsoft. It owns a 49% stake
| in OpenAI, so the only action that OpenAI could take to hurt
| Microsoft would be to deliberately destroy its own value.
| bhouston wrote:
| > I guess it has a cost, though? I presume OpenAI didn't like
| this move. If that's the case, what might be the
| consequences?
|
| Until OpenAI releases GPT 5 and it blows everyone away,
| OpenAI's leverage is constantly decreasing as the gap between
| their best model and everyone else's best model decreases.
|
| There doesn't seem to be moats right now in this industry
| except for pure model performance.
|
| Maybe someone should as ChatGPT what OpenAI should do to
| maintain long-term leadership in this industry?
| asynchronous wrote:
| They also have brand recognition, for what it's worth.
| Every non-engineer in the world practically thinks AI ==
| ChatGPT.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Meh, I don't think it's worth much. In a few years
| that'll be like claiming that so-and-so had name brand
| recognition for transistors. Most people don't need to
| care who manufactures their transistors.
| bhouston wrote:
| Unless your market is direct to end user, end user brand
| name recognition doesn't matter. In the case of AI, at
| least so far, the primarily income won't be from end-
| users directly, but rather via enterprise integrations
| into existing tools that already have end user market
| share (e.g. Microsoft Office, Microsoft Windows, VS Code,
| Notion, etc.)
| donny2018 wrote:
| It's not necessarily a bad thing. Most people don't know
| that TSMC exists, or what Microsoft does beyond Windows
| and Xbox (which are a small fraction of its business).
| ethanbond wrote:
| Correct, I didn't say it's a bad thing. I said it's not
| clear that it's a good thing (i.e. an asset)
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _Most people don 't need to care who manufactures their
| transistors._
|
| They might, in an upside-down world where the Shockley
| Semiconductor board tried to fire Shockley, and where the
| Traitorous Eight not only didn't bail out but took his
| side.
| ben_w wrote:
| Brands can change quickly, but they do matter in the
| short term. I've witnessed customer support teams use
| Firefox to say they only supported Internet Explorer and
| government ministers who thought it was "good" that IE
| was the "only" web browser, and weirdly a phone company
| whose customer support person thought their SIM cards
| worked better on Android than iPhone and that their web
| chat wouldn't work with a Mac even though they were
| talking to me on a Mac at the time.
|
| And when I was a kid, it seemed like all the teachers
| thought it would be a waste of time to learn MacOS
| because "Apple would be bankrupt soon". (Given how much
| all the app UIs changed, right decision for the wrong
| reason).
| ethanbond wrote:
| All of these examples are end-products. "AI" itself will
| not be. The winner in AI will be whoever permeates other
| products/brands most successfully, and end-user brand
| familiarity doesn't matter much for that. Familiarity
| among engineering and product leaders is what matters.
| ben_w wrote:
| Indeed, I'm not disagreeing on that, merely opining that
| "ChatGPT" as a name could well be relevant for a bit.
| mitjam wrote:
| Maybe, but maybe AI will become front and center of
| consumer and productivity IT products and their premier
| brand ambassadors will be anthropomorphized AI agents.
| Hello Clippy, this time for real.
| bhouston wrote:
| Sure that helps with the consumer market, but most people
| will use AI integrated into other products and not
| directly.
|
| Those integrated AI solutions will usually be done via
| enterprise deals where brand name is not quite as
| important. It will be done by people who care about cost,
| reliability and ease of use.
|
| Think of nginx's dominance in web servers even though it
| has no name recognition among the general population. Or
| Stripe's payment system.
| vinay427 wrote:
| Yes, however it's increasingly likely that the GPT in
| ChatGPT will not be limited to OpenAI (in the US), so I'm
| not sure how much ChatGPT will be worth with countless
| other platforms containing GPT in their names.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/15/no-gpt-trademark-for-
| opena...
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| The thing is that there is almost no lock in in the
| models. So brand recognition doesn't help much as people
| look into the benchmarks and price sometime in the
| future, if not when just starting out.
| behnamoh wrote:
| > There doesn't seem to be moats right now in this industry
| except for pure model performance.
|
| Hard disagree. OpenAI's function calling is something no
| other commercial model provides, not even Gemini and
| Mistral Large.
| fzzzy wrote:
| The mixtral large marketing at the top of hn right now
| claims json mode and native function calling. I haven't
| tried it, but that's what they say.
| riquito wrote:
| Is it different from
| https://docs.mistral.ai/guides/function-calling/ ?
| jorvi wrote:
| > There doesn't seem to be moats right now in this industry
| except for pure model performance.
|
| Compute?
|
| At least in the short term, it seems like the biggest
| wallets are going to win by default.
| robrenaud wrote:
| If I had to pick one player who wanted to win the AI race
| and was willing to be ruthless to do it, I'd pick Nvidia.
| Computation is the excludable bottleneck, and Nvidia is the
| essentially the singular company who makes AI computers.
|
| Hire Ilya, get him to hire as many of the best folks he
| can.
|
| Stop selling GPUs. Hoard them. Introduce some subtle bug
| into the drivers that dramatically increases their rate of
| burn out.
|
| Figure out some reasonable way to give attribution to
| original content creators, approximately solve the content
| ID problem of the AI age. Cut the content creators into the
| rev share in proportion to their data importance to the
| model. Make the content creators incredibly pissed off that
| their work is being stolen by big AI companies unfairly and
| encourage to them to sue the other big AI firms. Their
| content share multiplier increases if they get injunctions
| against LLM firms.
|
| Convince politicians that the AI firms have performed an
| intellectual heist of epic proportions, and that they must
| not be allowed to even generate synthetic training data
| from poisoned models. With the content creators united
| behind you, convince congress that poisoned models must be
| destroyed, that even using synthetic training data from
| poisoned models must be illegal. Make them start over from
| a clean room with no copyrighted data.
| johngossman wrote:
| > Stop selling GPUs. I'm not sure Wall St. would reward
| that plan
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Yeah, he seems to have left out the critical middle step
| ("Gather investors to take $2T company private.")
| Ringz wrote:
| Sounds like someone has finally asked ChatGPT for a
| feasible plan to consolidate the AI landscape.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Make them start over from a clean room with no
| copyrighted data.
|
| And when such models become popular[0], all the artists
| now have no job and no way to get compensation for being
| unable to work through no fault of their own.
|
| I don't think that's really a winning condition. It might
| make you feel better about the world, but the end result
| is still all the artists being out of work.
|
| [0] some models are already trained that way, although I
| assume you're using the word "copyrighted" in the
| conventional sense of "neither public domain nor an open
| license", as e.g. all my MIT licensed stuff is still
| copyrighted but it's fine to use.
| robrenaud wrote:
| In my hypothetical future, at least the people who create
| the content used to train the models can get "training
| royalties", which they aren't getting now.
|
| There is still also money to be made in producing
| physical art or performances, even when AI can produce
| amazing digital works.
| bhouston wrote:
| >If I had to pick one player who wanted to win the AI
| race and was willing to be ruthless to do it, I'd pick
| Nvidia. Computation is the excludable bottleneck, and
| Nvidia is the essentially the singular company who makes
| AI computers.
|
| I've thought the same thing. NVIDIA getting into AI
| seriously is a vertical integration play and they often
| do that -- like NVIDIA trying to buy ARM.
| codexon wrote:
| If google benchmarks are to be believed, gemini 1.5 will
| be better than gpt and they use their own chips (Google
| TPU), no nvidia involved. There is also Groq. I don't see
| Nvidia keeping their lead and profit margins forever.
| SunlitCat wrote:
| >Stop selling GPUs. Hoard them. Introduce some subtle bug
| into the drivers that dramatically increases their rate
| of burn out.
|
| Well, they didn't stop selling GPU when cryptomining was
| going strong. Instead they continued to sell them (with a
| hefty markup, tho).
|
| It's like selling shovels and picks during a gold rush.
| ben_w wrote:
| Eh, all this talk of "moats" etc. feels weird when just a
| few years ago it seemed like everyone was complaining
| they'd rearranged their corporate structure to include a
| fully-owned profit-making subsidiary to attract
| investments, and _all the loud voices_ seemed to think a
| cap of x100 return on investment was so large it was
| unlikely to be reached.
|
| And then OpenAI tripped and fell over a magic money
| printing factory, and the complaints are now in the set
| ["it's just a stochastic parrot", "it's so good it's a
| professional threat to $category", "they've lobotomised
| it", "they don't have a moat", "they're too expensive"].
|
| As the saying goes, "Prediction is very difficult,
| especially if it's about the future!"
| iambateman wrote:
| I suppose they didn't but Microsoft has a $3T market cap and
| OpenAI is theoretically valued at $80B.
|
| OpenAI has 700 people, Microsoft has 220,000 people.
|
| OpenAI is strong but they're still dependent on MSFT.
| cuckatoo wrote:
| MSFT needs companies like OpenAI to give Azure credits to
| for their valuation to continue soaring. The deferred
| revenue on their balance sheet from the unspent Azure
| credits they give as investment are worth much more to
| their market cap than $80B.
| jart wrote:
| It sounds like they took the Federal Reserve's business
| model and applied it to computing.
| yellow_postit wrote:
| OpenAI will want to expand to all clouds to increase TAM.
|
| Microsoft will want to avoid things regulators in the current
| regime will go after.
|
| This seems like a step towards both and ultimately good for
| developers as it seems likely to bring costs down by
| increasing competition.
| bookaway wrote:
| It's also a good play to try to take resources away from local,
| self-hosted "Feasible AI" solutions. With compute resources, I
| think Microsoft hopes Mistral skews their focus and resources
| towards large models that can run only run in the cloud, trying
| to lure them away with the bait: "Don't you want to build the
| best AI possible, independent of compute?"
|
| I'd be surprised if they didn't consider the notion that they
| are hitting to birds with one stone: OpenAI and Indie AI.
| dhruvdh wrote:
| It's not like Microsoft is working on "Windows AI Studio"
| [1], or released Orca, or Phi. It's not like there's any talk
| of AI PCs with mandatory TOPs requirements for Windows 12.
| Big bad Microsoft coming for your local AI, beware.
|
| [1] https://github.com/microsoft/windows-ai-studio
| whimsicalism wrote:
| You're downvoted for the snarky tone I guess, but you're
| absolutely right
| peteradio wrote:
| Even easier to rug pull your own teams project than
| someone else's.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I don't see why Mistral would acquiesce. Like the other
| comment says, Microsoft has a _lot_ of chips on the table for
| local AI. They didn 't even mention DirectML, ONNX or
| Microsoft's other local AI frameworks - suffice to say
| Microsoft _does_ care about on-device AI.
|
| So... would Mistral deliberately sabotage their low-end
| models to appease Microsoft's cloud demand? I don't think so.
| Microsoft probably knows that letting Mistral fall behind
| would devalue their investment. It makes more sense to
| bolster the small models to increase demand for the larger
| ones, at least from where I'm standing.
| teh_infallible wrote:
| So.. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Moving straight from Embrace to Extinguish, why not!
| loceng wrote:
| From my understanding, which may be wrong, you only need the
| massive compute resources initially to create a compiled
| vector space LLM - and then that LLM once compiled can be run
| locally?
|
| This is why anti-CSAM measures policy is possible so
| compiled-release LLMs can have certain vector spaces removed
| before release; but apparently people are creating cracks for
| these types of locks?
| behnamoh wrote:
| Satya is known to play 4-D chess. With this deal, MSFT is at
| least two dimensions ahead of the competition. /jk
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| The pro is that MS buys more AI hype to pump up their share
| price.
|
| The con is that MS attracts more attention from regulators.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| Yes, it's their tried and true maneuver: embrace, extend,
| extinguish.
| blackoil wrote:
| Can we stop having this comment in every Microsoft post. It
| is like people have no clue what EEE is/was, but if it is MS
| let's post this.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| Uh, sorry, but this seems pretty consistent with trying to
| co-opt and kill open source AI competition:
|
| > [EEE] describe its strategy for entering product
| categories involving widely used standards, extending those
| standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using
| those differences in order to strongly disadvantage its
| competitors.
| ramon156 wrote:
| Also I've never heard the term myself
| epolanski wrote:
| Putting multiple bets and having multiple partnerships is smart
| regardless of OpenAI drama.
|
| This way Microsoft is less dependent on a single deal and can
| diversify their offering based on use cases.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| > This is just a smart move by Satya Nadella
|
| Diversifying their AI bets definitely makes total sense. If
| this wasn't their strategy originally, it almost certainly
| became so the moment the OpenAI board fired Sam Altman.
|
| It's easy to make simplistic judgements from the outside, but
| with the limited information we have, it does seem like Satya
| Nadella came out of this OpenAI debacle looking pretty
| competent.
|
| It's hard to reconcile the fact that the Microsoft that handled
| the unexpected OpenAI issue so well is the same Microsoft that
| seems intent on literally setting fire to their flagship
| product! (Windows)
| kernal wrote:
| A smart move by Microsoft is to not be reliant on another
| company for their AI needs.
| htrp wrote:
| Interesting that microsoft is hedging their bets across the
| foundational model spectrum
|
| >Microsoft will also take a minor stake in the 10-month-old
| Paris-based company, although the financial details have not been
| disclosed.
| KuriousCat wrote:
| Is there an alternative for them?
| jklinger410 wrote:
| Archive link: https://archive.is/ouoE5
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Anyone else having issues loading that link?
| nyoomboom wrote:
| Archive itself has issues for me
| jakub_g wrote:
| archive.is is known not to work with Cloudflare DNS (google
| it for details).
| TaurenHunter wrote:
| For some reason that doesn't work for me - it just times out.
|
| Google cache did:
| https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
| jacooper wrote:
| A far better experience than the crappy archive links
| neel8986 wrote:
| At this point OpenAI should definitely think of some sort of
| partership with AWS and GCP. Otherwise they will be just one of
| the few models
| hef19898 wrote:
| Honest question from someone who never touched one of those
| models, is OpenAI anything else than the first and most hyped
| model developer?
| IanCal wrote:
| IME nothing is as good out of the box as gpt4 for many tasks.
| JackFr wrote:
| Is gpt4 as good in non-English uses? It's not clear to me
| that it would be particularly important or advantageous,
| but does Mistral being based in Europe and polyglot first
| make it interesting vs. gpt4 in some dimension?
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| I guess it might depend on language, but as a Spanish
| speaker who sometimes uses LLMs in Spanish, I'd say the
| gap between GPT-4 and most of the competition (Mistral
| included) is actually _larger_ in Spanish than in
| English.
| barrell wrote:
| In my experience it's not such a simple question. If you
| want to be able to speak in nuanced non-English and have
| it pick up on the intricacies, or have it respond in rich
| correct non-English, then it's not the best model (Cohere
| recently released an aya model that I would recommend
| checking out if this is your use case).
|
| If you want to be able to give basic commands and have
| the model reason about the logic behind your commands,
| gpt 4 is still the best, even in minority languages.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| gpt4 is going to better than other models in every
| language except maybe chinese
| staticman2 wrote:
| Depends on the task. Gpt 4 isn't necessarily better at
| _translation_ than Claude. I 'm aware of no benchmarks on
| this.
| TwentyPosts wrote:
| From what I heard Gemini might be better at translation
| tasks than GPT4.
| moffkalast wrote:
| It's the best multilingual model out there and it's not
| even close.
|
| Especially in terms of open models Mistral's are the most
| multilingual but outside a few handpicked ones the level
| of proficiency is just too poor for any real usage.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I don't disagree with you, but an open source model fine
| tuned for your use case, and embedded with your data is
| probably going to be way better at many companies uses
| cases than GPT4 is.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Yes, GPT-4 still rules, downside is it's expensive and
| relatively slow.
| bhouston wrote:
| I personally didn't realize how fast other models would catch
| up to OpenAI.
|
| There is a whole set of models now (and some like Meta are
| purposely trying to undermine OpenAI competitive advantage via
| open source models) and they are relatively interchangeable
| with nearly no lock-in.
|
| OpenAI's main advantage is being first to market and having the
| strongest model (GPT 4), and maybe they can continue to run
| ahead faster than everyone else, but pure technical leadership
| is hard to maintain, especially with so many competitors
| entering.
| behnamoh wrote:
| > I personally didn't realize how fast other models would
| catch up to OpenAI.
|
| They haven't though. Gemini is vaporware and other models are
| not as good as GPT-4.
| bhouston wrote:
| Mistral Large is quite close to GPT 4 per the stats from
| today:
|
| https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-large/
|
| Now once OpenAI launches GPT 5 well I am sure other models
| won't look so good, but right now these other models are
| approaching GPT 4 capabilities.
| parineum wrote:
| I'm pretty bearish on GPT 5 being better than 4. With how
| neutered 4 has gotten over time, I'd be surprised if GPT
| 5 is able to perform better with all the same
| restrictions that GPT 4 has. GPT 4 is less and less
| willing to actually accomplish a task for you than it is
| to tell you how you can do it. It looks more and more
| like Markov chains every day.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Did you mean bearish?
| parineum wrote:
| Yes I did, thanks.
| PunchTornado wrote:
| I find gemini advanced better than gpt4. it is my go to
| option now.
| donny2018 wrote:
| For now. As others have said, there is no technological
| "moat" in this business that could prevent others from
| catching up.
|
| Perhaps the best way for Open AI is to become THE
| established AI services company. AWS is still the leader in
| cloud computing space, and only has Azure competing,
| despite the fact that other big companies are also
| technologically capable of building similar products.
| nicce wrote:
| > AWS is still the leader in cloud computing space, and
| only has Azure competing, despite the fact that other big
| companies are also technologically capable of building
| similar products.
|
| What happened to GCP? I personally switched away because
| of the bad experiences.. but is that happening in scale
| as well. I see it barely mentioned these days.
| kccqzy wrote:
| GCP is suffering from bad sales strategy and lack of
| existing enterprise relationships.
| Marlinski wrote:
| Their main advantage for now is their super clean API. Open
| source alternative are already on par with GPT-3.5 and 4
| capabilities, they just don't have as good a package but that
| could change rather quickly too.
| fakedang wrote:
| Mistral's API was designed to be practically
| interchangeable with the OpenAI API.
| generalizations wrote:
| What open source alternative is on par with GPT4?
| tombert wrote:
| Is that true? I was running Llamas on my laptop a few days
| ago, and it was giving measurably worse results than
| ChatGPT. I think it was the uncensored 13B model, but if
| you got something that's on par with ChatGPT that I can run
| on my own hardware I'm pretty interested.
| bhouston wrote:
| 13B models probably cannot directly compare with ChatGPT
| 4 which maybe +1T parameters or a 5 way MoE of 200B each
| - or something like that. So you can not likely run a
| model competitive with ChatGPT locally in the near term.
| tombert wrote:
| I have a server with a bunch of PCIe slots and like 4
| Nvidia GPUs with 24GB of RAM each. What's the best model
| I can realistically run?
| bhouston wrote:
| Here are some scorecards:
|
| https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_lead
| erb...
|
| https://paperswithcode.com/sota/sentence-completion-on-
| hella...
|
| https://paperswithcode.com/sota/common-sense-reasoning-
| on-wi...
|
| https://paperswithcode.com/sota/common-sense-reasoning-
| on-ar...
|
| https://paperswithcode.com/sota/common-sense-reasoning-
| on-co...
| koito17 wrote:
| > Open source alternative are already on par with GPT-3.5
| and 4 capabilities
|
| I'm not sure if this is true. With GPT-4, I can
| successfully ask questions in Japanese and receive
| responses in (mostly natural) Japanese. I have also found
| GPT-4 capable of understanding the semantics of prompts
| with Japanese and English phrases interleaved.
|
| Out of curiosity, I tried doing the same with local models
| like Mistral 7B and I could never get the model to emit
| anything other than English. Maybe it's a difference in
| training data, but even then, GPT-4 has an allegedly small
| set of training data for non-European languages.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Sure, but it is somewhat disheartening to see GPT 4 still
| being the king by a clear margin after a full year,
| especially since it's been nerfed continuously for speed and
| cost effectiveness.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| Their problem is that they had to agree on an exclusive
| relationship with azure in order to secure funding from
| Microsoft
| rrdharan wrote:
| I think there's an EU vs US hedge here too, Mistral is likely to
| be more compliant or at least more favored by EU regulators (see
| how Spotify's GDPR violation is playing out
| https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/13/spotify-gdpr-data-access-f...).
| KuriousCat wrote:
| I would not be surprised if there are more nation level
| initiatives: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-20/australia-
| loss-relyin...
| izolate wrote:
| Not trying to be dismissive of Mistral, but I bet that's a
| large driving force behind the effort. Usually I'd prefer to
| focus on the technical aspects, but with the undeniable
| geopolitical impact of technology/AI, I think it necessitates a
| discussion.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| American partnerships with EU companies are subject to a lot
| more regulatory scrutiny in the EU.
| blitzo wrote:
| I bet sooner or later Microsoft will be in hot water again with
| antitrust and this time with generative ai
| krautt wrote:
| that's a good problem to aspire toward.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| How come?
| crazygringo wrote:
| You're going to have to give some specific reason why though.
|
| Why this would have anything to do with antitrust is not at all
| obvious to me. Especially when Google has been inventing and
| acquiring its own generative AI technology that it is competing
| with.
| dandy23 wrote:
| Because MS is everywhere.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The OAI stake/deal is already under regulatory review and
| generally EU is perceived as blocking most large tech mergers
| since the iRobot intervention.
|
| I suspect we are going to soon see political backlash against
| regulation in the EU as it is becoming very clear that this
| is causal to their bad capital markets.
| blackoil wrote:
| OAI merger?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| sorry mis-spoke - OAI stake.
| nicce wrote:
| > I suspect we are going to soon see political backlash
| against regulation in the EU as it is becoming very clear
| that this is causal to their bad capital markets.
|
| Who would have thought that human rights are bad for
| business..
| whimsicalism wrote:
| What human right do I have to Amazon not owning a vacuum
| company?
| nicce wrote:
| Nothing. But you probably don't see one located in
| Europe, because they would need to allow strikes, there
| is good level of minimum wage protection in general and
| strong privacy laws. It is harder to stalk the toilet
| breaks for employees.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Median wages in the US are considerably higher than in
| Europe. Amazon wanted to buy iRobot but was blocked by
| regulators.
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/db7c6cfc-8ab2-4ee8-a41d-ba20b2
| 8d4...
| croes wrote:
| Tight integration of AI into the OS and Office.
|
| What if users want to user other AI services?
|
| It's Internet Explorer and Media Player all over again.
| fzzzy wrote:
| That's a problem that companies worry about after they have it.
| rapsey wrote:
| FTC is pretty useless lately.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| Official MS post: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/ai-
| machine-learning-b...
|
| Official Mistral post: https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-large/
|
| More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511477
| moralestapia wrote:
| Not a dupe, that one is about the LLM release, this one is
| about the MS-Mistral deal.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Not only does the official Mistral post have a whole section
| on the deal, it links out further to MS's official post on
| the deal also. It's all the same discussion
| moralestapia wrote:
| Smart move by Satya, to fund both sides of the war.
| neutralino1 wrote:
| Satya is buying popcorn.
| stall84 wrote:
| Hey when articles are paywalled like this.. What do most of you
| guys/gals do ? Just comment on the headline?
| be_erik wrote:
| Using an archive link, normally works: https://archive.is/ouoE5
| overvale wrote:
| https://archive.ph/ouoE5
| weberer wrote:
| I automatically hit Ctrl+F and search for any comments
| mentioning "archive". Someone usually posts one within 5
| minutes.
| euniceee3 wrote:
| Assume the content is trash and then read the comments for the
| recap. Like anything that is relevant will get quoted.
| cuckatoo wrote:
| This is just another play to give out more Azure credits to
| anyone that can feasibly consume them. Azure credits show up as
| unearned revenue on their SEC filings where they state that they
| "expect to recognize approximately 45% of this revenue over the
| next 12 months and the remainder thereafter".
|
| It's wild that you can give out gift cards that make your
| company's value go up so much more than the gift cards could ever
| cost you. It's almost like one of those financial schemes that
| end badly.
| boiler_up800 wrote:
| Just from experience in the cloud industry, Microsoft is really
| successful within Europe, potentially more so than in America. I
| think this partnership will be really successful.
| ametrau wrote:
| Embrace < you are here
| skadamat wrote:
| Brilliant move by Microsoft. You want to be the one selling
| shovels during a gold rush, as they say?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| nvidia is the shovel seller
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| quibble, but nvidia is the shovel _maker_. LLMs require a lot
| of vram but the underlying hardware requirements are actually
| fairly simple. There are already efforts in place to create
| inference specific ASICs.
|
| That'll absolutely eat into Nvidia's profit margins.
| skadamat wrote:
| Yeah computation has more layers and sellers, it's not a
| perfect analogy but good enough I feel
| Alifatisk wrote:
| Clever move, Microsoft have been placing ever puzzle piece
| correctly so far
| ranman wrote:
| Is this why AWS had this announcement on Friday?
| https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/mistral-ai-models-coming-so...
| AISnakeOil wrote:
| Mistral is really fantastic compared to other local LLMs. Even
| the 7B model is very usable on an older GPU.
|
| Excited to see how things go from here in the open-source space.
| yogorenapan wrote:
| It's concerning that the new model isn't on Huggingface. I hope
| Microsoft doesn't stop it from open sourcing the models and code.
| unnouinceput wrote:
| Good luck with that wish bro. Microsoft is all about money and
| there is no money in open source for them.
| MH15 wrote:
| VSCode? Typescript?
| sublimefire wrote:
| And how exactly this earns money for them? embrace extend
| extinguish
| jacooper wrote:
| Vscode is a bad example, almost all useful Plugins are
| closed source on purpose, the package they ship also
| includes modifications that aren't open either.
| BirbSingularity wrote:
| Mistral has already scrubbed their commitment to open source
| from their website, doesn't look good.
| yoyojojofosho wrote:
| Microsoft Azure blog post on Mistral partnership:
| https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/microsoft-and-mistral...
| finnjohnsen2 wrote:
| It is the easiest to assume the worst for sure, but Microsoft is
| not the same as the Bill Gates era so Im gonna be a cautious
| optimist on this one. Lets hope it is to promote Azure, and they
| dont push the OpenAI route when it comes too openess. Which is
| closed and a big loss for the world and a disappointment
| tombert wrote:
| They're not the same, but they're still a for-profit company.
|
| 90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil; they
| were evil because they felt that monopolistic practices were
| the easiest way to increase their share price. They have a
| responsibility to their shareholders to try and maximize their
| share price and so it's hardly unsurprising that they did the
| infamous Embrace Extend Extinguish, and until regulators
| stepped in, such practices worked pretty well.
|
| Most companies don't get large enough to form any kind of real
| monopoly, so it's easy to get on a high-horse. It's also easy
| to act like it was just a product of "those people", but I
| fundamentally think that it's a natural consequence of a
| company that has achieved nearly-total market dominance.
|
| I have very little faith that a multi-trillion-dollar company
| is going to prioritize what's best for the world.
| Fundamentally, I think that if they feel they can get away with
| it, they'll revert to monopolistic tendencies and try and
| increase share price.
|
| I'm not just picking on Microsoft here either; replace them
| with basically any other near-monopoly in tech and my
| criticisms still hold.
| finnjohnsen2 wrote:
| > 90's era Microsoft wasn't evil for the sake of being evil
|
| You are to forgiving. I don't care too much about the why
| behind the evil in the software business and this is probably
| why my rants fall under Godwin's law too often. I won't this
| time.
|
| > They have a responsibility to their shareholders to try and
| maximize their share price
|
| ... but I was damn close.
|
| I agree with your whole point about Microsoft. But I don't
| think it's the same company anymore, I like some of the
| recent stuff, and I trust their lack of monopoly on the web.
| For now.
| exe34 wrote:
| > You are to forgiving
|
| I think the point is that companies aren't good or evil,
| they are amoral non-aligned super intelligences that
| maximise shareholder profits.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| The ads I see on Windows desktop machines (and shenanigans with
| nonstandard Html extensions and browser defaults and etc...)
| tell me Microsoft is just as eager to leverage it's monopoly
| status as ever.
|
| No doubt the company is cautious about some things now but even
| in these, it will push the boundaries.
| huytersd wrote:
| Those ads on the login screen are so cheap, wonder why they
| would do that.
| BirbSingularity wrote:
| They already have removed their commitment to open-source. It's
| not looking good.
| downrightmike wrote:
| MSFT just doesn't say the quiet part out loud these days
| jonplackett wrote:
| Clever move.
|
| Thinking about it, Google or Apple should have got in there with
| Mistral.
| philoinvestor wrote:
| I don't see how this "AI rush" isn't going to skew markets, skew
| the financials of big tech and create a bubble in the space.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| There is a bubble in the valuations of LLMs similar to the
| valuation of NFTs. Anyone can create a modified version of
| Llama2.
| ctrw wrote:
| Yes and each of those costs between half a million in pure
| compute to a few hundred million for fine tuning/training.
| thethimble wrote:
| The last All in Podcast had an interesting take on this:
|
| Most of the R&D and Capex going into LLMs/GenAI is
| speculative. The investments haven't translated into real
| revenue yet. The expectation is that there will be a large
| pot of revenue at the end of the road, but we haven't seen
| the killer apps to substantiate this. This makes for a
| perfect bubble if the promise doesn't pan out.
|
| Relatedly Nvidia's revenue - as impressive as the recent
| growth has been - is fully exposed to this risk.
|
| Of course it's possible (likely?) that there will be major
| wins from this tech, but the fact that there isn't definitive
| proof (in the form of revenue) yet represents real risk.
| andai wrote:
| Well, the major win will be when AI makes human labor
| uneconomical. Not sure what that's going to do to the stock
| prices though...
| pantulis wrote:
| > The expectation is that there will be a large pot of
| revenue at the end of the road, but we haven't seen the
| killer apps to substantiate this
|
| Imho, unlike crypto and NFT, AI is not a solution in search
| of a problem. While there is a lot of hand waving, it is
| not very adventurous to predict that there will be
| significant productivity gains by adding AI on top of
| current business processes. Thus the killer apps will be...
| the same apps we are using today with a touch of AI magic
| dust.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| Also, outside of making chatbots and waifus there's a lot
| of hard tech problems waiting for ai type solutions.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _All in Podcast_
|
| Calacanis and Palihapitiya are the Jim Kramers of tech.
| chasd00 wrote:
| that's the root of my skepticism. I've yet to see huge
| transformational projects involving AI from the grapevine
| of my 750k+ employee consulting firm, all I hear about are
| experiments, webinars, and POCs. What I see in the news
| regarding the few projects live is not good, AirCanada and
| some others where the AI went wrong and now the company has
| to backtrack.
|
| There's no doubt the tech community is all excited because
| genai, indeed, helps write code but I've yet to hear a
| large company like Coca Cola announce large AI
| transformation projects the way they announced large cloud
| transformation projects a few years ago.
|
| I get more and more on the AI bandwagon as time goes on but
| I still have a pretty healthy skepticism on how deep and
| wide the tech will penetrate day to day business at
| enterprises and that's where the ROI is.
| codexon wrote:
| The open source models are VERY far behind gpt4.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Theres a lot of not-great software that can have bites taken
| out of it by LLM advancements and most of the incumbents are
| going to pay into it because they just can't compete in the AI
| field.
|
| Can LLMs become reliable enough at transforming data that it
| can replace or augment the current slew of ETL tools? Can it
| produce visualizations better then current BI tools? Can
| copilot compete with a junior developer? Im not sure, but at
| this point Im willing to say 50/50 which is worth the bet.
| esics6A wrote:
| This is a bubble and one that will burst very hard. AI is the
| perfect technology for this. It's opaque and most investors
| (who barely understand tech in general) have no clue what it
| really does or how it works. This is the closest we've ever had
| to multiple large respected tech companies selling "snake oil"
| a cure all. The capabilities of AI they mention as if they're
| available today are literally many decades and generations
| away. Automating information workers, creatives and engineers
| will take AGI that's simply impossible with our technology.
|
| When the AI bubble bursts I wouldn't be surprised if takes down
| major tech companies with it.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Can you be specific about what the bubble is?
|
| I am getting 100x value out of my 30 chatgpt bucks. I am
| doing things that I could not have done pre-gpt4, being more
| productive by a factor of, idk, 1.25 maybe.
|
| It's quite simply the largest/simplest productivity
| improvement in my life, so far. Given it's only going to get
| better, unless they are underpricing the service by a
| _enormous_ margin (as in: defrauding shareholders margin) I
| have a hard time understanding what shape the bubble could
| possibly have.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Do any AI companies actually turn a profit? I feel like the
| only real winner is Nvidia because they are selling shovels
| to the gold diggers, while all the gold diggers are trying
| to outspend each other without a business model that has
| any consideration for unit economics.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| I love a prudent take on company money - but given how
| investing works and how young this entire thing is and
| the (to me) absolutely real value, I find it hard to be
| very worried about that part right now.
|
| I can literally run a ballpark model on my MB Pro, right
| now, at marginal additional electrical cost. I will be
| the first to say that all of this (including GPT4) is
| still fairly garbage, but I don't know when there was the
| last time in the history of tech, where less fantasy to
| get from here to what will be _good_ was required.
| chucke1992 wrote:
| The thing is that the bigger business giants like MSFT or
| Amazon are probably profit quite nicely from AI. Smaller
| companies, not aligned with any big giants - probably
| not.
| PheonixPharts wrote:
| You're really generating $3000 per month from ChatGPT? Can
| you give a hint about what you've built that generates this
| kind of ROI?
|
| I have only seen people making money in AI by selling AI
| products/promises to other people who are losing money. The
| practical uses of these tools still seem to be largely
| untapped outside of as enhanced search engines. They're
| great at that, but that does not have a return on value
| that is in proportion to current investment in this space.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > Can you give a hint about what you've built that
| generates this kind of ROI?
|
| Sure. Absolutely nothing amazing: (Mostly) internal
| software for a medical business I am currently building.
|
| It's just that the actual cost of hiring someone is even
| quite a bit higher, than what is printed on the paycheck
| and the risk attached to anyone leaving on a small team
| is huge (n=0 and n=1 is an insane difference). GPT4 has
| bridged the gap between being able to do something and
| _not_ being able to do something at various points over
| the past year.
|
| EDIT: And to be clear, while I won't claim "rockstar
| programmer", I have coded for roughly 20 years, which is
| the larger part of my life.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Just spoke to a restaurant group owner in Mexico who was
| able to eliminate their web developer because he can now
| ask ChatGPT to draft up a basic website.
|
| The kicker? It couldn't do the interactive menu their old
| website did, so now clicking menu links to a PDF. Which
| is always, ALWAYS, better.
| sgu999 wrote:
| > he can now ask ChatGPT to draft up a basic website.
|
| I'm pretty sure he could have done that with one of the
| thousands tools like Wix, many years before ChatGPT.
| slices wrote:
| yes, but which one of thouse thousand, how long would it
| take to learn how to use it, etc. Still less friction in
| just asking ChatGPT to do this via the same interface you
| ask it to do a bunch of other stuff.
| fragmede wrote:
| Even just looking at ChatGPT as a better frontend to the
| Wix help docs, ChatGPT empowered this restaurant owner to
| do the job themselves, rather than having to have a
| person do it. Which means that person is out of a job.
| Good for the restaurant owner, but bad for that person.
| Which means it's down to personal relationships and how
| you treat people and all those soft skills that aren't
| programming.
| phatfish wrote:
| Pretty sure he still does that. Unless ChatGPT can now
| test and deploy a website as well as generate text.
| saewitz wrote:
| It's better with accessibility?
| doug_durham wrote:
| You are only looking at one dimension. What is your
| hourly rate based on your salary. If ChatGPT saves you 10
| hours a month that could easily be over $2000.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| This is just a +1 to the ROI discussion, but I'd say that
| AI tooling roughly doubles my development productivity.
|
| Some of it's in asking ChatGPT: "Give me the 3 possible
| ways to implement X?" and getting something back I hadn't
| considered. A lot of it is in sort of "super code
| completion".
|
| I use Cursor and the UI is very slick. If I'm stuck on
| something (like a method that's not working) I can
| highlight it and hit Cmd+L and it will explain the code
| and then suggest how to fix it.
|
| Hit Cmd+K and it will write out the code for you. Also,
| gotten a lot of mileage out of writing out a rough
| version of something in a language I know and then
| getting the AI to turn that into something else (ex: Ruby
| to Lua).
| spiderice wrote:
| I'm really curious what is making you so much more
| productive. My experience with AI has largely been the
| opposite. Also curious how you're using AI to make $3,000
| per month more than you would without it.
| choilive wrote:
| It's not that he is making $3k a month, he gaining the
| equivalent productive value of of $3k.
| aquova wrote:
| I feel the same way. I think LLMs are neat, and I find
| them interesting from a technical standpoint, but I have
| yet to have them do anything for me that's more than just
| a novelty. Even things like Copilot, which I'll admit has
| impressed me a bit, doesn't feel like it would radically
| change my life, even if it was completely foolproof.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I get that there are limitations with LLMs, but I _don 't_
| understand people saying it has no value, just because it
| occasionally hallucinates. Over the past week I've used
| chatGpt to code not one, but two things that were
| _completely_ beyond my knowledge (an auto delete js
| snippet, and a gnome extension that turns my dock red if my
| vpn turns off). These are just two examples. I 've also
| used it to write a handy regex and write a better bash
| script.
|
| LLMs are insanely helpful if you use them with their
| limitations in mind.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > LLMs are insanely helpful if you use them with their
| limitations in mind.
|
| This depends on your use case. I can honestly tell that
| all the chat bot AIs don't "get" my kind of thinking
| about mathematics and programming.
|
| Since some friend who is graduate student in computer
| science did not believe in my judgement, I verbally
| presented him some test prompts for programming task
| where I wanted the AI to help me (these are not the most
| representative ones for my kind of thinking, but are
| prompts for which it is rather easy to decide whether the
| AI is helpful or not).
|
| He had to agree from the description alone that the AIs
| will have difficulties with these task, despite the fact
| that these are common, and very well-defined programming
| problems. He opined that these tasks are simply too
| complex for the existing AIs, and suggested that if I
| split these tasks into much smaller subtasks, the AI
| might be helpful. Let me put it this way: I personally
| doubt that if I stated the subtasks in a way in which I
| would organize the respective programs, the AI would be
| of help. :-)
|
| What was just important for me was to able to convince
| the my counterpart that whether AIs are helpful or not
| for programming depends a lot on your kind of thinking
| about programming and your programming style. :-)
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I would say that the ability to break a problem down into
| manageable chunks is the mark of a sr dev. I think of
| chatGpt as a jr that's read _a lot_ but understands only
| a little. To crib Kurtzwell you gotta 'run _with_ the
| machine '
| fragmede wrote:
| What did happen when you split the question into
| subtasks? What were those questions?
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Any chance you could share the prompt?
|
| I on the otherhand feel like I am completely in sync with
| Copilot and ChatGPT. It is as if it always knows what I
| am thinking.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| This is a rather long post, I'm genuinely curious why you
| did not describe the problem that you want to solve. Is
| it too complex for even humans to understand?
| chasd00 wrote:
| > LLMs are insanely helpful if you use them with their
| limitations in mind.
|
| the fact that LLM responses can't be add supported (yet)
| make them much more valuable than internet search IMO.
| You have to pay for chatgpt because there's no ads. No
| ads no constant manipulation of content and your search
| to get more ads in front of you.
|
| Having to pay for using genai is it's best selling point
| ironically.
| rchaud wrote:
| The bubble is that every $1 in capital going to
| OpenAI/Nvidia is a $1 that cannot be invested anywhere
| else: Healthcare, Automotive, Education, etc. Of course OAI
| and Nvidia will invest those funds, but in areas beneficial
| purely to them. Meta has lost $20bn trying to make Horizon
| Worlds a success, and appears to have abandoned it.
|
| Even government-led industrialization efforts in socialist
| economies led to actual products, like the production of
| the Yagan automobile in Chile in the 1970s[0].
|
| We've already had a decade plus of sovereign wealth funds
| sinking tens of billions into Uber and autonomous driving.
| We still don't have those types of cars on the road and
| it's questionable whether self driving will even generate
| the economic growth multiplier that its investment levels
| should merit.
|
| [0] https://journal.hkw.de/en/erinnerungen-an-den-yagan-
| allendes...
| DANmode wrote:
| As well as the artificially increased valuations for
| every company with the .ai TLD for their landing page.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Fair enough. I personally would have a hard time spotting
| an outsized lost opportunity value with confidence, if it
| existed.
|
| It feels, though, that this argument could (maybe a be
| little _too_ easily) be applied to any new industry
| sector, in horse-vs-car fashion.
| polski-g wrote:
| When Meta "lost" 20bn, they actually spent it on salary.
| The employees then go out and buy things like the Tesla
| Automobile, an actual product.
| acdha wrote:
| This sounds like the broken window fallacy. You could use
| the same logic to suggest that Meta dump piles of cash on
| the sidewalk in front of their office - it'd circulate
| but it wouldn't help them.
| rchaud wrote:
| If the same $20bn was spent on fixing a bridge, people
| would spend those wages to boost economic activity AND
| have a fixed bridge that will improve output even more.
| Horizon Worlds isn't a productive use of capital in that
| regard.
|
| It'd be one thing if they open-sourced their VR tech,
| some of that could lead to productive tech down the line,
| but as a private company, they're not obliged to do any
| of that.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Last night I asked ChatGPT 4 to help me write a quick bash
| script to find and replace a set of 20 strings across some
| liquid files with a set of 20 other strings. The strings
| were hardcoded, it knew exactly what they were in no
| unclear terms. I just wanted it to whip up a script that
| would use ripgrep and sed to find and replace.
|
| First, it gave me a bash script that looked pretty much
| exactly like what I wanted at first glance. I looked if
| over, verified it even used sed correctly for macOS like I
| told it, and then tried to run it. No dice:
| replace.sh: line 5:
| designer_option_calendar.start_month.label: syntax error:
| invalid arithmetic operator (error token is
| ".start_month.label")
|
| Not wanting to fix the 20 lines myself, I fed the error
| back to ChatGPT. It spun me some bullshit about the problem
| being the "declaration of [my] associative array, likely
| because bash tries to parse elements within the array that
| aren't properly quoted or when it misinterprets special
| characters."
|
| It then spat out a "fixed" version of the script that was
| exactly the same, it just changed the name of the variable.
| Of course, that didn't work so I switched tactics and asked
| it to write a python script to do what I wanted. The python
| script was more successful, but the first time it left off
| half of the strings I wanted it to replace, so I had to ask
| it to do it again and this time "please make sure you
| include all of the strings that we originally discussed."
|
| Another short AI example, this time featuring Mistral's
| open source model on Ollama. I'd been interested in a
| script that uses AI to interpret natural language and turn
| it into timespans. Asking Mistral "if it's currently 20:35,
| how much time remains until 08:00 tomorrow morning" had the
| model return its typical slew of nonsense and the answer of
| "13.xx hours". This is obviously incorrect, though funnily
| enough when I plugged its answer into ChatGPT and asked it
| how it thought Mistral may have come to that answer, it
| understood that Mistral did _not_ understand midnight on a
| 24 hour clock.
|
| These are just some of my recent issues with AI in the past
| week. I don't trust it for programming tasks especially --
| it gets F# (my main language) consistently wrong.
|
| Don't mistake me though, I do find it genuinely useful for
| plenty of tasks, but I don't think the parent commenter is
| wrong calling it snake oil either. Big tech sells it as a
| miracle cure to everything, the magic robot that can solve
| all problems if you can just tell it what the problem is.
| In my experience, it has big pitfalls.
| codexon wrote:
| I have the same experience. Every time I try to have it
| code something that isn't completely trivial or all over
| the internet like quicksort, it always has bugs and
| invents calls to functions that don't exist. And yes, I'm
| using GPT-4, the best model available.
|
| And I'm not even asking about an exotic language like F#,
| I'm asking it questions about C++ or Python.
|
| People are out there claiming that GPT is doing all their
| coding for them. I just don't see how, unless they simply
| did not know how to program at all.
|
| I feel like I'm either crazy, or all these people are
| lying.
| throwawayanothe wrote:
| Same experience here
| nkozyra wrote:
| > I feel like I'm either crazy, or all these people are
| lying.
|
| With some careful prompting I've been able to get some
| decent code that is 95% usable out of the box. If that
| saves me time and changes my role there into code review
| versus dev + code review, that's a win.
|
| If you just ask GPT4 to write a program and don't give it
| fairly specific guardrails I agree it spits out nearly
| junk.
| taco-hands wrote:
| > People are out there claiming that GPT is doing all
| their coding for them. I just don't see how, unless they
| simply did not know how to program at all.
|
| I doubt it and certainly not for anything beyond basic.
| I've seen (and tried GPT's for code input a lot) and
| often they come back with errors or weird
| implementations.
|
| I made one request yesterday for a linear regression
| function (yes, because I was being lazy). So was
| chatGPT... It spat out a trashy broken function that
| wasn't even remotely close to working - more along the
| lines of pseudo code.
|
| I complained saying "WTH, that doesn't even work" and it
| said "my apologies" and spits out a perfectly working
| accurate function! Go figure.
|
| Others have turned to testing tips or threats, which is
| an interesting avenue:
| https://minimaxir.com/2024/02/chatgpt-tips-analysis/
| jstummbillig wrote:
| I hear you. It's all pretty bad. I have spent half-days
| getting accustomed to and dealing with gpt garbage -- but
| then I have done that plenty of times in my life, with my
| own garbage and that of co-workers.
|
| On the margins it's getting stuff good enough, often
| enough, quick enough. But it very much transformed my
| coding experience from slow deliberation to a rocket
| ride: Things will explode and often. Not loving that
| part, but there's a reason we still have rockets.
| outside1234 wrote:
| There is very clear value in LLMs
|
| The bubble is that it is not clear there is a $XXXB
| business in building or hosting them.
|
| OpenAI is losing money hand over fist, open source models
| are becoming available that are on-par and so commoditize
| the market, etc.
| novaRom wrote:
| > largest/simplest productivity improvement in my life, so
| far
|
| many productivity improvements in the last years: Internet
| Search, Internet Forums, Wikipedia, etc. LLMs and other AI
| models is continuation of the improvement of information
| processing.
| philoinvestor wrote:
| Can I paste links in replies here? I wrote an article about
| the AI bubble a few weeks ago.
| philoinvestor wrote:
| You may be getting 100x value out of your 30 bucks.
|
| Is that the only variable that one needs to consider to
| gauge if this is bubble territory?
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Other variables is basically what I was asking for, in
| the first sentence of my comment.
| philoinvestor wrote:
| How many GPUs are being delivered today and for how long
| will they be used / what's their life?
|
| Who is funding the purchase of those GPUs?
|
| If VC money then what happens if the startups don't make
| money?
|
| Are users using AI-apps because they are free and dump
| them soon?
|
| Isn't their competition in semiconductors? Won't we have
| chips-as-a-commodity soon? LLMs-as-a-commodity?
|
| Is Big Tech spending all this money to create VALUE or
| just to survive the next phase of the technological
| revolution? (e.g. the AI rush)
|
| If prices are high, and sales are high, and competition
| is still low -- then how much is nvidia actually worth?
| And if we don't now why is it selling for so many times
| earnings?
|
| https://www.philoinvestor.com/p/downside-at-nvidia-and-
| the-n...
| dottjt wrote:
| It's that "it's only going to get better" part that is
| driving the bubble, I think.
|
| The market has this idea that over the next year, we're
| somehow going to have AI that's literally perfect. Yet
| that's not how technology works, it takes decades to get
| there.
|
| It'd be like if the first LCD TV was invented, and all of a
| sudden everyone is expecting 8k OLED by the next year. It
| just doesn't work like that.
| thatoneguy wrote:
| Yeah, but this is different because it's largely just
| money -> more GPUs -> more people looking at the problem
| -> better results. You can't stumble upon an 8K TV
| overnight but you can luck upon the right gold mining
| claim and you can luck upon some new training algorithm
| that changes the game immediately.
| philoinvestor wrote:
| I agree that it's opaque and that's why I said that AI can be
| the ULTIMATE bubble.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| It's a shame the phrase "black box" exists in machine
| learning when it could have been "black bubble".
| Spivak wrote:
| > This is the closest we've ever had to multiple large
| respected tech companies selling "snake oil" a cure all.
|
| The problem with this take is you can deliver real results.
| At current $dayjob we do the very dumbest thing which is text
| -> labels -> feedback -> fine_tune -> text... and surface
| them as part of our search offering and it's rocketed to the
| most useful customer feature in less than 6 months of rolling
| it out. Customers define labels that are meaningful to them,
| we have a general-purpose AI classify text according to those
| labels. Our users gleefully (which is shocking given our
| industry) label text for us (which we just feed into
| fine_tuning) because of just how fast they can see the
| results.
|
| Like it's as grug brain as it gets and we bumbled into a
| feature that's apparently more valuable to our users than the
| rest of the product combined. Folks want us to sell it as a
| separate module and we're just hoping they don't realize it's
| 3 LLMs in a trenchcoat.
| ABS wrote:
| P/E ratios (so far) say otherwise: all the big tech public
| companies have reasonable P/E ratios and are investing
| heavily their profits in contrast to, say, the dotcom bubble
| when over 40% of the companies had P/E ratios unsustainably
| over the moon.
|
| Are there a gazillion companies riding the "AI everywhere"
| wave to raise money? yes, yes there are. Will most of them
| fail? sure.
|
| But the big players are fine at the moment so there is
| nothing that can burst very hard (yet) and the difference is
| in the denominators which are, so far, going up.
|
| Of the top ones only NVIDIA and Amazon have P/E ratios a bit
| too high and among the top 10 only AMD's is way too high.
| partiallypro wrote:
| I think there is a bubble, but not in the traditional sense
| of this all being nonsense. Obviously, AI is going to be a
| world changer, but I think in a few years many companies are
| going find, at least for them, that their projects using AI
| are wildly unprofitable. Good AI is expensive. This could
| take years to play out, but when Nvidia is trading higher
| than Microsoft and Apple in total market cap, we'll be well
| into it. I don't rule that out.
| SunlitCat wrote:
| It's like the previous craze with blockchain. Everyone and
| their dog was about to use blockchain to do the most awesome
| thing ever. And even things that didn't really lend
| themselves to blockchain were suddenly presented as prime
| examples of how to use blockchain.
|
| I'm not saying both technologies don't have their uses, but
| the hype around them is crazy and not healthy.
| philoinvestor wrote:
| Yep, there are similarities between the blockchain rush and
| the AI rush.
|
| But in my last piece on AI, I said that AI is 50X
| Blockchain!
| codexon wrote:
| This technology is already fully automating copywriters and
| almost replacing concept artists right now. However it is
| true that right now the valuations are for something far more
| than that, and so far it doesn't seem like LLMs will be able
| to do much more.
|
| I was talking to someone that just retired from a programming
| position at a FANG and he seems to think that AGI (artificial
| general intelligence) is only a few years away just based off
| what he sees with ChatGPT and he's dumping all his money into
| AI stocks. The level of hype and over-extrapolation is so
| absurd, and the fact that it can affect someone with a
| technical background...
|
| It really does seem like a bubble to me.
| ForgotIdAgain wrote:
| Isn't the role of a concept artist mainly to do
| worldbuilding and drawing second? AI does not seem to have
| a good world model, they make pretty pictures but they lack
| thought behind them.
| codexon wrote:
| I really don't know the details.
|
| You can see a concept artist here discovering he stopped
| getting work after a company splurted out that they
| switched to AI.
|
| https://twitter.com/_Dofresh_/status/1709519000844083290
|
| My guess is that a lot of people can have ideas, so you
| don't need an artist to bring them to life anymore.
| aquova wrote:
| Agreed, and I think there are a number of... over-
| enthusiastic executives with dollar signs in their eyes
| who are in for a rude awakening about this. It might
| sound great to replace your artistic staff with an LLM
| subscription, until you realize that you laid off all the
| creative vision with them. That isn't to say I think
| it'll go away though, I wouldn't be surprised if art
| students in the future are taught how to wrangle LLMs to
| supplement their own designs.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| > When the AI bubble bursts I wouldn't be surprised if takes
| down major tech companies with it.
|
| Hopefully, knock wood. Maybe it will even slow down the
| genrral enshittification created by those major tech
| companies.
| d--b wrote:
| Well that's your view, but we keep seeing incredible progress
| year on year.
|
| Noone thought beating the game of Go was feasible.
|
| Noone thought self-driving cars would actually work.
|
| Noone predicted ChatGPT. See where we're at now with multi
| modal models.
|
| And Sora.
|
| The truth is that you can't predict anything anymore about
| this tech cause all expectations keep being blown away.
|
| AGI may be right there, and that's what's driving the money.
| ArchOversight wrote:
| > Noone thought self-driving cars would actually work.
|
| Many people thought self driving WOULD work and that we'd
| be further along than we are now. We have vastly
| overestimated how far we'd be, and vastly underestimated
| how much time and effort it would actually take.
|
| Self driving cars as they exist today are still mere toys
| compared to where the industry thought they were going to
| be. Look at Cruise, Waymo, Zoox, Uber's ex-self driving car
| division and others.
|
| We are not anywhere near the self-driving autonomous cars
| we had hoped for.
| huytersd wrote:
| Eh I don't know. I find ChatGPT very useful atleast 10 times
| a day.
| PheonixPharts wrote:
| I've stopped believing in rational markets a long time ago. For
| the people behind this funding madness:
|
| > to skew markets, skew the financials of big tech and create a
| bubble in the space.
|
| Are the _intended_ consequences of this. The people behind the
| money in AI, just like the people behind the money in crypto,
| _don 't care_ if there's a reality to all of this, they just
| care if they can make a lot of money while the music is
| playing.
|
| I really thought 2022 was going to be the beginning of tech
| returning to reality, but naively didn't understand that this
| would entail a lot of people with a lot of money losing money,
| and that's not going to happen.
|
| As with all bubbles, the interesting thing isn't pointing out
| there's a bubble, we've been living in many bubbles for decades
| now. The interesting thing is pointing out what will make it
| pop. So long as globally money keeps pouring into US markets
| we'll see this continue.
|
| On the plus side, at least LLMs are a lot of fun to work and
| play with!
| rchaud wrote:
| "Efficient markets" deliver normal returns. The people with
| the most capital to throw at things are trying to create
| monopolies that can generate supernormal returns.
|
| This is already a highly unstable arrangement, and it's made
| more dangerous by introducing impurities like artificially
| suppressed interest rates and SPAC IPOs.
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> I 've stopped believing in rational markets a long time
| ago._
|
| It makes a lot more sense if you think of markets as just a
| bunch of coked out hairless monkeys. Then "rational" becomes
| a lot more meaningful.
| DANmode wrote:
| > I've stopped believing in rational markets a long time ago.
|
| Agreed.
|
| Sentiment is everything.
| philoinvestor wrote:
| With the way NVIDIA is moving and how it's seeding AI
| startups, you could be right about them actively trying to do
| this. But there is a reality beyond our ability to predict
| it..
| asimpleusecase wrote:
| https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-large/
|
| In fulfilment of some of the comments in this thread meet mistral
| Large on Azure
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| With mixture of experts (MoE) models, I would think that Mistral
| might make a lot of money reselling specific models to big
| players like Microsoft and Google to augment their MoE systems.
|
| I mostly use either mistral7b or mixtral8-7b for most things, and
| experiment with other models on the side. In what world will LLMs
| not become a commodity?
|
| You might answer that question by saying that on player achieves
| AGI and captures the market, but I think there will be more to
| AGI than LLMs.
| comeonbro wrote:
| > With mixture of experts (MoE) models, I would think that
| Mistral might make a lot of money reselling specific models to
| big players like Microsoft and Google to augment their MoE
| systems
|
| I am curious about what you mean by this. There is a (very
| understandable) common misconception about what "mixture of
| experts" means in current practice.
|
| Mixtral is not a mixture of fully-separable domain experts,
| like one is an expert at programming and one is an expert at
| arts and literature. The "experts" are per-layer (and as far as
| I know, the subject of their "expertise" not even interpretable
| at this point).
| hscontinuity wrote:
| I'm lost here. Can anyone explain why the speculation of risk
| resounding around a 'bubble' of LLM and other emerging
| technologies (TinyLM, VLM, ALM, etc) is rounding a bubble?
|
| Meaning, the dot-com bubble showed a misappropriation of revenue
| by leading technology companies alongside the capital
| investorship, mainly VC's and private equity. Basically, everyone
| spent without producing a product; which lead to the mergers
| still the basis for many of the largest corporations today (and
| subsequently the 2008 crash, which further merged companies in
| the aftermath).
|
| So, for me the difference is the money being spent here in this
| 'bubble' isn't like parking new mall shops on various websites,
| then spending the capital to entice buyers to purchase (either
| for store products or the store itself) - rather - it seems to me
| that both private and public sentiment is that the future is
| bright with the right application of these tools, in the right
| systems, to promote applicable use cases for things we (humans)
| can leave up to code/machines.
|
| For instance, one of the most impressive applications of TinyLM
| uses is setting up several (or dozens) of tiny sensors in say a
| greenhouse. Each sensor can be linked to a central data
| repository for active monitoring to deploy active controls - be
| it barometric pressure, moisture content (soil, air), etc.
| Linking a bunch of these devices and letting it automatically
| run, along with linking this sensors as the data-providers to
| machines that may in turn plant, cull, trim, essentially a fully
| automated greenhouse.
|
| I'm not greenthumb and I lack in-depth knowledge around how
| greenhouses (modern or old) work. However, it's without
| understanding the details I do understand it still takes a (or
| more) human to maintain the greenhouse.
|
| Consider making these kinds of greenhouses (as is standard in
| some places now with vertical in-door growing farms) completely
| autonomous.
|
| That's pretty technologically feasible it would seem with the
| newest applications of (quote) AI. And it's likely very
| profitable as well.
|
| If I were to take the same ideology and apply to other
| industries, I find several applications like the one I mention
| that would absolutely change how we (humans) live in this (soon
| to be, IMHO) post-human industrialized world.
|
| So where is all of the doom and gloom from - monopoly, errant
| comprehension of the technologies, or simply dogma?
| nojvek wrote:
| Microsoft knows they won big in Cloud via Azure Big as in 100s of
| billions.
|
| They know someone is going to win big in AI. They lost big on the
| mobile OS. It is the biggest blunder of Microsoft.
|
| They don't want to lose on AI. Better to hedge your bets.
|
| They have so much money lying around. Better to invest where they
| think the puck will be.
|
| Yes AI is hyped but I doubt the bubble will burst. Cheap human
| like intelligence if achieved via AGI is gonna make them 10x more
| valuable.
|
| Meta is all in, Google is all in, Microsoft is all in.
|
| Tesla is betting they'll be the biggest robotics company on the
| planet.
|
| Getting to AGI is like getting to first nuke for tech behemoths.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > They lost big on the mobile OS. It is the biggest blunder of
| Microsoft.
|
| I've watched Bill Gates tell Andrew Ross Sorkin during an
| interview "if it wasn't for the FTC investigating us for the
| anti-trust lawsuit, we wouldn't have been distracted/took our
| eye off the prize on mobile"
|
| How sure are we Microsoft "has what it takes/had what it took"
| to deliver a phone + operating system as polished as Apple?
|
| Windows 11 is very much measurably worse than Mac OS Sonoma.
| Littered with ads, in between old UI + new UI patterns, etc.
|
| That's 2024
|
| I'm not super confident I'd prefer a Microsoft/Windows mobile
| OS and therefore I'm not super confident they could actually
| have delivered a good one
| fragmede wrote:
| It doesn't matter if it's any good, it just has to be
| functional, which Microsoft proved they can do, since windows
| phones existed. Microsoft has the business side (aka money
| and patience that Google doesn't) to make it happen. Look at
| how well Microsoft Teams is doing. Look at Bing, now that
| it's got ChatGPT behind it.
| quantisan wrote:
| I had multiple Microsoft Lumia as my primary driver for a
| couple years. I've been on iPhones for 10+ years total. There
| were some good (better user interface) and bad (Live logins
| required in random places) with Windows Mobile. Like Windows,
| they have pockets of good ideas fractured by their lack of
| cohesion.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| I think Windows Mobile could have been better than Android.
| In fact, at one point it debatably was. Personally I think
| Windows is considerably more usable than OSX (yeah I know
| that's going to offend people and raise a near-religious
| argument) and while I won't say Microsoft's hardware is or
| ever was as good as Apple's, I think they are far better at
| UI/UX and hardware than Google. Actually I think they're
| better at almost everything than Google.
|
| They could have easily been where Android is now if they were
| two years faster. I think we'd just have a different duopoly
| and iPhone would still be basically where it is today.
| blagie wrote:
| > I won't say Microsoft's hardware is or ever was as good
| as Apple's, I think they are far better at UI/UX and
| hardware than Google.
|
| Microsoft-proper hardware is crap, even compared to high-
| end Google. However, that doesn't matter. My Thinkpad eats
| Apple hardware for breakfast (as well as anything from
| Google or Microsoft). Dell has a few nicer laptops in the
| Precision line which do almost as well as Thinkpad, and
| definitely better than Apple / Google / Microsoft.
|
| It's the ecosystem.
|
| > Actually I think they're better at almost everything than
| Google.
|
| I'd agree, except:
|
| - Hardware
|
| - Office 365 typing synchronization
|
| Google Pixel Pro is quite good (as are most top-of-the-line
| Google phones), as was the Chromebook Pixel (their top-of-
| the-line Chromebook, when they made it).
| AlienRobot wrote:
| I find this ironic because you could say many of the problems
| with modern Windows (& Linux) GUI stem from distancing the
| design from the traditional desktop paradigm and seeking to
| mobile-fy everything, specially with large click targets.
| blagie wrote:
| Microsoft has gotten pretty good at software development.
| Satya Nadella has been doing a surprisingly good job
| reforming everything about the company.
|
| That doesn't mean Windows wasn't absolute dogs--t for many
| years and isn't riddled with a pile of technical debt. Apple,
| in contrast, started with NeXTStep. I agree about the
| specifics you mention (built-in ads and spyware), but the
| core problems with Windows predate modern Microsoft, and
| can't really big fixed.
|
| If, in 2024, Microsoft decided to invest in building a real
| mobile OS, I think they could do okay. The bigger problem
| would be lack of app ecosystem, and the chicken-and-egg
| problem with that and users. It's not clear even the best
| mobile OS could displace Android + iOS.
|
| If I were Microsoft, and I wanted to get in, I'd probably
| fork Android, to maintain app compatibility. Doing that well
| would mean killing the goose which is currently laying the
| golden eggs, though, as it would require replacing Google
| apps with Microsoft ones. A lot of what makes Android work
| are free Google accounts, whereas Office 365 is $100 per
| year. I don't think a Microsoft phone would be competitive
| unless it had all the same stuff for free, and likely more.
|
| I actually feel like Android is starting to be a little bit
| vulnerable; a privacy-preserving, non-user-hostile version
| could have pretty good uptake. Again, not the business
| Microsoft is in.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| Microsoft's gunning for a far more short-term win: Search.
|
| Bing has been an also-ran in the search world for a decade
| (single digit % of search volume compared to Google's 90%+),
| and AI has shown the first real crack in Google's monopoly.
|
| The future is pretty clearly going to be directly getting AI
| answers to questions and much less looking at a page of 10 blue
| links and it's still really unclear if Google is going to make
| the transition.
| chasd00 wrote:
| >The future is pretty clearly going to be directly getting AI
| answers to questions
|
| with a subscription model, no ads, and therefore no seo
| manipulation of content/answers. I'm all for it!
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > Getting to AGI is like getting to first nuke for tech
| behemoths.
|
| Except, unlike AGI, nukes happened. We are no closer to AGI
| than we were when we lived in caves. We found a small local
| maximum (LLMs), I have seen _NO_ evidence that there is a path
| from here to AGI.
| fragmede wrote:
| Even if LLMs _are_ a local maxima, given that we 're even
| asking that question implies that we are closer to AGI than
| caveman who didn't have GPUs, even if we don't know exactly
| how much closer. Unless it takes us 12,000 years to get to
| AGI, which, it could, since we don't have it yet, but
| assuming we get AGI before 12,000 years are up, which is when
| the end of the Paleolithic era was, then yes, we can say we
| _are_ closer to AGI than cavemen, regardless of if LLM or
| GPUs are how it comes about. If it never does, then this
| comment will age poorly in 12,000 years, but I 'm okay with
| that.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > given that we're even asking that question implies that
| we are closer to AGI than caveman
|
| "Am I close to having gills and breathing underwater?" The
| fact that I asked, changes _nothing_.
| joelfried wrote:
| You don't think having functional computers being capable
| of trillions of operations per second is even the
| slightest bit of an improvement over use of literal
| stones?
|
| I am genuinely curious: What do you imagine would be the
| kind of thing that would be a meaningful step towards
| AGI?
|
| I have no idea when we'll get there for real, but it
| seems a pretty big assertion that nothing invented in the
| last 150 years even helped. So what do you think would
| help?
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Ok. I'll rephrase. In caves we were 0% there. Now we're
| 0.00001% there :). Maybe. May need a few more zeroes.
| What we have helps probably, but hard to be sure how
| much. Maybe we need 1e40 FLOPS for AGI. In that case
| going from 1FLOP (human in a cave) to 1e14 FLOPS (a GPU
| now) is irrelevant.
|
| I'll believe we're closer when we have a computer solve a
| novel problem that is not a simple pattern match to a
| similar solution. When a computer can reply to "write me
| a JIT translator from ARMv5 to ARMv7M" with working code.
| That takes actual thought and we're not even close.
| thatoneguy wrote:
| I think the real nuke will be that we're already at some
| basic level of AGI because human consciousness isn't as
| complicated as we think it is. I'm guessing we're only 10
| years out from lowly generative AI getting advanced enough to
| effectively be what think of AGI now.
| edouard-harris wrote:
| This seems like a remarkable chain of reasoning. Out of
| curiosity, what would convince you that there _is_ a path
| from LLMs (say) to AGI? What would you expect progress along
| that path to look like?
| Jackson__ wrote:
| And yet, it's kinda looking like everyone except OAI has hit
| the same pre-gpt4 capability wall.
|
| I'll hedge my bets on whether AGI is even possible entirely on
| how much of an improvement we'll see with GPT5. If it is just a
| marginal improvement, that's basically it for the current ML
| bubble.
| chasd00 wrote:
| that's an interesting take, i wonder what the graph looks
| like of model capability over time. If GPT5 doesn't fit in
| the curve and a year goes by with no one else showing the
| same rate of progress... is that it for the LLM hype machine?
| nimbius wrote:
| >Microsoft knows they won big in Cloud via Azure Big as in 100s
| of billions.
|
| Malarkey. Microsoft got where they are in cloud by dogfooding
| every single piece of software they wrote into their cloud
| platform, every single service they ran on their gaming
| platform, and every single user on github and minecraft. After
| that they turned to corporate customers and forced them into
| the cloud as well and finally made every single end user of
| windows sign up too (cant miss any of those precious KPIs.) If
| they won anything it wasnt through genuine consumer desire to
| use Azure. The efforts were mostly a shuffling of deck chairs
| and pump-job similar to the IIS wars on netcraft back in the
| day where M$ would pump their IIS numbers with static content
| served from parked websites at hosting providers they paid to
| switch from Apache.
|
| >They have so much money lying around. Better to invest where
| they think the puck will be.
|
| they also have a track record of building things no one wants
| and ruining things everyone likes. Minecraft and Github are
| demonstrably worse in a lot of ways than they were before
| redmond took the helm. having a lot of money doesnt make you
| clairvoyant.
|
| >Meta is all in, Google is all in, Microsoft is all in.
|
| who the fuck cares? these are all companies that exist in the
| nadier of their innovation. that they collectively scrape
| barrel to come up with tech memes for the business kids isnt
| exactly remarkable outside the fact they havent delivered
| anything of value in so long its surprising we still have to
| hear about them at all.
|
| >Tesla is betting they'll be the biggest robotics company on
| the planet.
|
| The guys who cant get self-drive right? run by the same guy who
| pedaled twitter into the ground? sure.
|
| AI is a meme for these companies...a parlour trick they use on
| the money pump for just another year longer before its
| reinvented into some other nonsensical sci fi pablum for
| general consumption under the late hour of capitalism.
| ciberado wrote:
| Confrontational replies to comments that doesn't provide
| actual data or concrete examples to support the
| counterarguments are not very useful. It would be interesting
| to know why do you find in GitHub worse than before, or why
| Minecraft is ruined.
|
| Edit: typo fix.
| elorant wrote:
| It's not just that. Microsoft is in a better position _today_
| to make big money from AI because their products are in
| millions of corporations. B2B is their bread and butter. Google
| isn't in that position, neither is Apple, Meta or most AI
| companies out there. Microsoft has built trust over decades of
| selling OSes and offering legendary backwards compatibility in
| anything they build. This is what the big spenders want.
| karamanolev wrote:
| How is Google not? A quick search points that Google
| Workspace has a huge market penetration.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Correct, but there's typically a divide between workspace
| tools and infrastructure for ownership, compliance, and
| approval internally.
|
| In a prior life, our IT manager was the owner of Microsoft
| productivity products and I was the owner of Azure. We both
| had drastically different risk profiles and governance
| needs.
| elorant wrote:
| Those are all web toys. We're talking about databases and
| CRMs and programming languages and all the stuff that make
| the backbone of big corporations.
| kccqzy wrote:
| The Google Workspace is roughly comparable with Office 365.
| But Microsoft has a lot more than just Office.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| i think you're overlooking iOS instances with "neural"
| accelerators in the pockets of the people in those
| corporations.
| elorant wrote:
| And how will that materialize? Will Apple build a new AI
| chip that would be affordable enough to embed in every
| iPhone, or whatever new device they will invent? Or will it
| all be cloud based where it should be able to support
| hundreds of millions of users?
|
| Microsoft already has the cloud infrastructure ready. They
| don't need to build a new device, or a new operating
| system, or whatever. They're milking the AI cow as we
| speak.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Apple has had "AI chips" in the iOS devices for years
| already. I wonder what you define as an AI chip, though,
| since we could be discussing different sorts of custom
| accelerators.
| elorant wrote:
| Look at what a company called Groq does. Their chip can
| generate 500 tokens/second from a model like Llama 2 70b.
|
| https://groq.com/
| netdur wrote:
| I believe Google stands apart; although their current offerings
| sucks, they possess all the necessary components, including
| software, data, and hardware.
| azinman2 wrote:
| What I don't get is that mistral is really only possible because
| of Meta.. and Meta has a user limit on the license. Does that not
| apply to Microsoft hosting this? Isn't the economics quite weird
| here? I'd be pissed if I were meta that someone took my model
| that I spent millions on and now will host a fine tuned version
| for money facilitated by Microsoft.
| allanrbo wrote:
| Why do you say Mistral only possible because of Meta?
| anonym29 wrote:
| Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39517016
| reissbaker wrote:
| Huh, I wonder if this comes with an OpenAI-like exclusivity deal
| for Mistral's closed models. If so, Satya just wrapped up pretty
| much the two largest names in AI other than Google.
|
| Sad but expected that Mistral is releasing its newer models as
| closed source. There was never a clear revenue stream from the
| open models.
|
| I'm confused why they aren't allowing their models to be
| finetuned, though -- that seems like an obvious way to compete
| with OpenAI, which only allows finetuning of its pretty weak
| gpt-3.5-turbo. Sure, Mistral can't quite beat GPT-4 yet, even if
| it's close -- but allowing finetuning would likely result in way
| better than GPT-4 performance on a broad variety of tasks (as
| long as you picked a few to specialize in).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-26 23:00 UTC)