4 ms·

Right, my expectation was they had something better than OpenAI they were sitting on and afraid to release / didn't know how to make money with it and were esse

by zeven7 4y ago

Right, my expectation was they had something better than OpenAI they were sitting on and afraid to release / didn't know how to make money with it and were essentially forced to show what they had once Chat GPT became a threat to search. I assume it's still possible they have something better and this is the nuked version that's "safe", but there's a reason for expectations to be high for Google here, and it really needs to clearly outperform Chat GPT in the same way GPT 4 clearly outperforms GPT 3.5.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> I assume it's still possible they have something better and this is the nuked version that's "safe" Its explicitly a smaller model to save on compute costs for scaling up to more users; but that’s a questionable decision given the situation with OpenAI’s accessible models and, if you are going to do that, why also do a slow-roll waitlist? I think both are signs of the kind of caution that will hurt Google in this market, even though the tech is near to the heart of what they do, the product isn’t, and they’ve gone very established-corp-cautious on products outside of their core.
- robwwilliams 4y ago
  DeepMind in their back pocket. LLMs need higher order supervisory logic and recursive attention/control systems. I suspect Hassabis and colleagues willl be able to wake LMMs from their semi-conscious dream states.
Palpatineli 4y ago
I mean they may have a better base model but if there is no business case, there is no resource to do RLHF with mass human labeling.
muskmusk 4y ago
In the olden days before Satya Nadella. Microsoft was a bloodsucking vampire of a company that couldn't execute anything of significance, but they had a pretty solid research department. Google could ofcourse sit on a much better version that isn't safe or economic, but they could also just be unable to do better. Good research department, but unable to execute anything significant. Time will tell I guess :)

by zeven7 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> I assume it's still possible they have something better and this is the nuked version that's "safe" Its explicitly a smaller model to save on compute costs for scaling up to more users; but that’s a questionable decision given the situation with OpenAI’s accessible models and, if you are going to do that, why also do a slow-roll waitlist? I think both are signs of the kind of caution that will hurt Google in this market, even though the tech is near to the heart of what they do, the product isn’t, and they’ve gone very established-corp-cautious on products outside of their core.

robwwilliams 4y ago
DeepMind in their back pocket. LLMs need higher order supervisory logic and recursive attention/control systems. I suspect Hassabis and colleagues willl be able to wake LMMs from their semi-conscious dream states.

Palpatineli 4y ago

I mean they may have a better base model but if there is no business case, there is no resource to do RLHF with mass human labeling.

muskmusk 4y ago

In the olden days before Satya Nadella. Microsoft was a bloodsucking vampire of a company that couldn't execute anything of significance, but they had a pretty solid research department. Google could ofcourse sit on a much better version that isn't safe or economic, but they could also just be unable to do better. Good research department, but unable to execute anything significant. Time will tell I guess :)