6 ms·

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

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!

preommr 4y ago
> 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.
dmitryminkovsky 4y ago
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.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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/ https://w00dn.github.io/papergrapher/"
Yhippa 4y ago
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.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Assuming, of course, good documentation, which is probably the hard part.
  - elil17 4y ago
    Just point it at your code to generate documentation (not now, but that’s the endgame)
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      The endgame is point it at docs to generate code... Ask your manager.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Lol, much easier said than done.
- nullsense 4y ago
  What about it confidently just making plausible sounding but false things up? That doesn't make for good customer service...
  - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
    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 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1601731295792414720
STELLANOVA 4y ago
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 4y ago
> Once an algorithm is out in the wild, but OpenAI is not open It's a bit like the "PATRIOT" Act that isnt patriotic.
- 93po 4y ago
  I researched this out of curiosity. It looks like their original intention was to be "open" in the sense of collaborating with universities and researchers. I'm not sure to what extent that still happens, or ever did. But sounds like their closed nature is likely due to two factors. The first is their transition to a for-profit company and outside investment from large corps like Microsoft. The other is their fear of their tooling being used maliciously - which it certainly would, but I'm not sure how justified that is.
fishtoaster 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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...
- devmunchies 4y ago
  > 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 4y ago
    how much is early adopter exploration?
    - devmunchies 4y ago
      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)
ZephyrBlu 4y ago
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.
allUrd4t4 4y ago
The data they have is the open internet Anyone can scrape public GitHub, YouTube, chat logs, public domain stories, art sites; it’s all right in front of our faces, an HTTP get in a for loop away Strange cognitive dissonance for a tech community to exhibit. Start deduplicating to build a mega model for yourself.
rvz 4y ago
Whenever I read comments like this, it looks like another AI bubble has been created with AI bros, cheerleaders and hype squads once again purposefully screaming 'It's the future bro', 'Google is doomed!', 'ChatGPT is the next big thing!', etc. This reminds me of the Stripe hype squad screaming over-valuations of $100BN+ which we will once again see for OpenAI and I can see a long term valuation of just $80BN. That is it. Anything higher is a signal of complete over-valuation. All of this is even before talking about the competition especially the open-source ones which indeed compete against OpenAI's so-called 'first mover advantage' as these open-source models are catching up and AI safety and regulations that will put checks and balances on the AI industry. But at this point, the only thing that can ruin OpenAI's plans is a better clone of itself but with an open source model, released for free and not under restrictive paywalls. That is truly 'Open AI', not some company pretending to be 'open' but is in fact essentially a Microsoft AI division. Might as well call it ClosedAI.

preommr 4y ago

> 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.

dmitryminkovsky 4y ago

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.

spaceman_2020 4y ago

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 4y ago
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/ https://w00dn.github.io/papergrapher/"

Yhippa 4y ago

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.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Assuming, of course, good documentation, which is probably the hard part.
- elil17 4y ago
  Just point it at your code to generate documentation (not now, but that’s the endgame)
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    The endgame is point it at docs to generate code... Ask your manager.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
endisneigh 4y ago
Lol, much easier said than done.
nullsense 4y ago
What about it confidently just making plausible sounding but false things up? That doesn't make for good customer service...
- ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  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 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1601731295792414720

STELLANOVA 4y ago

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 4y ago

> Once an algorithm is out in the wild, but OpenAI is not open It's a bit like the "PATRIOT" Act that isnt patriotic.

93po 4y ago
I researched this out of curiosity. It looks like their original intention was to be "open" in the sense of collaborating with universities and researchers. I'm not sure to what extent that still happens, or ever did. But sounds like their closed nature is likely due to two factors. The first is their transition to a for-profit company and outside investment from large corps like Microsoft. The other is their fear of their tooling being used maliciously - which it certainly would, but I'm not sure how justified that is.

fishtoaster 4y ago

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 4y ago
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...
devmunchies 4y ago
> 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 4y ago
  how much is early adopter exploration?
  - devmunchies 4y ago
    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)

ZephyrBlu 4y ago

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.

allUrd4t4 4y ago

The data they have is the open internet Anyone can scrape public GitHub, YouTube, chat logs, public domain stories, art sites; it’s all right in front of our faces, an HTTP get in a for loop away Strange cognitive dissonance for a tech community to exhibit. Start deduplicating to build a mega model for yourself.

rvz 4y ago

Whenever I read comments like this, it looks like another AI bubble has been created with AI bros, cheerleaders and hype squads once again purposefully screaming 'It's the future bro', 'Google is doomed!', 'ChatGPT is the next big thing!', etc. This reminds me of the Stripe hype squad screaming over-valuations of $100BN+ which we will once again see for OpenAI and I can see a long term valuation of just $80BN. That is it. Anything higher is a signal of complete over-valuation. All of this is even before talking about the competition especially the open-source ones which indeed compete against OpenAI's so-called 'first mover advantage' as these open-source models are catching up and AI safety and regulations that will put checks and balances on the AI industry. But at this point, the only thing that can ruin OpenAI's plans is a better clone of itself but with an open source model, released for free and not under restrictive paywalls. That is truly 'Open AI', not some company pretending to be 'open' but is in fact essentially a Microsoft AI division. Might as well call it ClosedAI.