5 ms·

Might be localization, PR, scaling, not enough capacity for the new users. I hate it but I can imagine it.

caddemon 4y ago
There also could be legal reasons, I have no idea if it's the case here but theoretically I could imagine something like "right to be forgotten" interacting oddly with LLMs.
- jonas21 4y ago
  Also libel (if the LLM makes up facts about someone), copyright (if it reproduces content), privacy (if some of the data it trained on wasn't intended to be public), etc. And on top of that, there are plenty of novel things that may or may not be illegal. If it can be tricked into making a pro-Nazi statement, is it violating German law? What if it offers medical or legal advice without a license? It's a pretty big legal minefield, and different jurisdictions have different laws and standards, so it makes sense to limit your exposure.
  - Bjartr 4y ago
    That's the cost of being first to market on something like this. You can't both play it safe and lead the pack.
    - jamiek88 4y ago
      Yeah let’s move fast and break stuff! Forget those inconvenient local laws and culture! This attitude is what is leading to the regulation and probable over regulation due to backlash of ‘big tech’. Those days are over. Just like any other sector doesn’t get to ignore laws. Unregulated US social media hit our democracies like a hurricane. The body politik doesn’t seem to be of a mind to let them do the same with AI.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
dao- 4y ago
> Might be localization If that's the problem then they're not supplying the right fix. Surely restricting this to users located in the US doesn't prevent people from writing in a language that isn't English. Google should be capable of detecting the language of a query, and potentially rejecting it based on that with an apology. > PR, Obviously there must be _some_ reason why they're doing this. Doesn't mean it's a good reason. > scaling, not enough capacity for the new users. That would be rather embarrassing for Google.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  > That would be rather embarrassing for Google. Why? They have no idea how many users they will get. If they buy A100s on the assumption they will get 50M daily active users they run the risk of wasting an enormous amount of money if they get 1M users instead. And its not like these GPUs grow on trees. Clearly MSFT is struggling to set up compute fast enough, see the decreasing rate limits on GPT-4.
  - dao- 4y ago
    So you're saying they might be incompetent enough for their estimation to be off by 50x? You're also saying Google, _a cloud computing provider selling access to A100s_, can't scale this dynamically? > Clearly MSFT is struggling to set up compute fast enough, see the decreasing rate limits on GPT-4. Well, even so, this is how you'd deal with capacity problems, rather than by arbitrarily shutting out parts of the world.
    - sanderjd 4y ago
      Predicting the future correctly isn't a matter of competence... And yes, even Google can't scale infinitely in the face of an actual physical resource constraint. When I worked there, there was a period when there was a shortage of memory chips, which required a lot of creativity. I suspect the current period is very constrained by how fast AI/ML focused chips can be manufactured.
      - 4y ago
pwb25 4y ago
just use english language then?
cowl 4y ago
>localization We don't want that. Every time Google launches something it takes months for it to understand that just because I'm currently located in country X does not mean I want localization or personalization for that country. Just release the service for those that can use it without the localization. After all we know that the vast majority of the models are trained on English, it's useless to give me a subpar undertrained model on local language.

There also could be legal reasons, I have no idea if it's the case here but theoretically I could imagine something like "right to be forgotten" interacting oddly with LLMs.

jonas21 4y ago
Also libel (if the LLM makes up facts about someone), copyright (if it reproduces content), privacy (if some of the data it trained on wasn't intended to be public), etc. And on top of that, there are plenty of novel things that may or may not be illegal. If it can be tricked into making a pro-Nazi statement, is it violating German law? What if it offers medical or legal advice without a license? It's a pretty big legal minefield, and different jurisdictions have different laws and standards, so it makes sense to limit your exposure.
- Bjartr 4y ago
  That's the cost of being first to market on something like this. You can't both play it safe and lead the pack.
  - jamiek88 4y ago
    Yeah let’s move fast and break stuff! Forget those inconvenient local laws and culture! This attitude is what is leading to the regulation and probable over regulation due to backlash of ‘big tech’. Those days are over. Just like any other sector doesn’t get to ignore laws. Unregulated US social media hit our democracies like a hurricane. The body politik doesn’t seem to be of a mind to let them do the same with AI.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

dao- 4y ago

> Might be localization If that's the problem then they're not supplying the right fix. Surely restricting this to users located in the US doesn't prevent people from writing in a language that isn't English. Google should be capable of detecting the language of a query, and potentially rejecting it based on that with an apology. > PR, Obviously there must be _some_ reason why they're doing this. Doesn't mean it's a good reason. > scaling, not enough capacity for the new users. That would be rather embarrassing for Google.

sebzim4500 4y ago
> That would be rather embarrassing for Google. Why? They have no idea how many users they will get. If they buy A100s on the assumption they will get 50M daily active users they run the risk of wasting an enormous amount of money if they get 1M users instead. And its not like these GPUs grow on trees. Clearly MSFT is struggling to set up compute fast enough, see the decreasing rate limits on GPT-4.
- dao- 4y ago
  So you're saying they might be incompetent enough for their estimation to be off by 50x? You're also saying Google, _a cloud computing provider selling access to A100s_, can't scale this dynamically? > Clearly MSFT is struggling to set up compute fast enough, see the decreasing rate limits on GPT-4. Well, even so, this is how you'd deal with capacity problems, rather than by arbitrarily shutting out parts of the world.
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    Predicting the future correctly isn't a matter of competence... And yes, even Google can't scale infinitely in the face of an actual physical resource constraint. When I worked there, there was a period when there was a shortage of memory chips, which required a lot of creativity. I suspect the current period is very constrained by how fast AI/ML focused chips can be manufactured.
    - 4y ago

pwb25 4y ago

just use english language then?

cowl 4y ago

>localization We don't want that. Every time Google launches something it takes months for it to understand that just because I'm currently located in country X does not mean I want localization or personalization for that country. Just release the service for those that can use it without the localization. After all we know that the vast majority of the models are trained on English, it's useless to give me a subpar undertrained model on local language.