4 ms·
Sounds a lot like Xerox and GUIs, Microsoft and Web 2.0, Microsoft and smartphones, etc
by Firmwarrior 4y ago
Sounds a lot like Xerox and GUIs, Microsoft and Web 2.0, Microsoft and smartphones, etc
- lostmsu 4y agoI must say that both of your and parent's points are very enlightening. Yours in that from it follows, that there's still quite a bit of room to get ahead of OpenAI for smaller players. Parent's in that in order to achieve above one can just leverage the public papers produced by bigger research labs.
- ben_w 4y agoDepends on the timescale. I have the feeling that smaller players are about as likely to get past GPT-n family in the next 2-3 years as I am to turn a Farnsworth Fusor into a useful power source. Major technical challenges that might be solvable by a lone wolf, in the former case to reduce the data/training requirements and in the latter to stop ions wastefully hitting a grid. But in 10 years the costs should be down about 99%, which turns the AI training costs from "major investment by mega corp or super-rich" into "lottery winner might buy one".
- robotresearcher 4y agoThis tech is capital-intensive even when you know how to do it.
- lostmsu 4y agoI heard estimates in tens of $M. That's rather available.
- robotresearcher 4y agoIsn't that quite a lot of other-than-personnel cost for a software startup? And how many iterations do you throw away before you get one that generates income?
- lostmsu 4y agoI did not necessarily mean 10 people startups. There are quite a few companies smaller than OpenAI, but much larger than 10 people.