3 ms·

Not only they have no moat, Open source models are uncensored and this is huge. Censorship is not just political , it cripples the product to basically an inf

by seydor 4y ago

Not only they have no moat, Open source models are uncensored and this is huge. Censorship is not just political , it cripples the product to basically an infantile stage and precludes so many applications. For once, it is a liability But this article doesn't state the very obvious: When will google (the inventor of Transformer, and "rightful" godfather of modern LLMs) , release a full open source, tinkerable model better than LLaMa? (To the dead comment below, there are many uncensored variations of vicuna)

thomas34298 4y ago
>Open source models are uncensored and this is huge Vicuna-13B: I'm sorry, but I cannot generate an appropriate response to this prompt as it is inappropriate and goes against OpenAI's content policy.
UncleEntity 4y ago
> When will google release a full open source, tinkerable model better than LLaMa? Arguably, Facebook released llama because it had no skin in the game. Google, on the other hand, has a lot of incentive to claw back the users who went to Bing to get their AI fix. Presumably without being the place for “Ok, google, write me a 500 word essay on the economic advantages of using fish tacos as currency” for peoples’ econ 101 classes causing all kinds of pearl clutching on how they’re destroying civilization. The open source peeps are well on the path of recreating a llama base model so unless google does something spectacular everyone will be like, meh.
bbor 4y ago
My very naive opinion is that the best way to predict the big-picture actions of Google is a simple question: WWIitND - What Would IBM in the Nineties Do? In more direct terms, their sole, laser focus seems to be on maintaining short-term shareholder value, and I really don't trust the typical hedge fund manager to approve of any risky OSS moves for a project/tech that they're surely paying a LOT of attention to. Giving away transformer tech made Google look like "where the smartest people on the planet work", giving away full LLM models now would (IMO) make them look like arrogant and not... well, cutthroat enough. At least this is my take in a world where financial bigwigs don't know or care about OSS at all; hopefully not the case forever!
- omeze 4y ago
  Yes, this reminds me of the story of transistors at IBM, when they had to pick between MOSFETs vs BJTs. MOSFETs were theoretically more scalable and what Intel eventually commercialized to great success. IBM had a lot of the best electrical engineers at the time, but chose to focus on BJTs because they supported their core product, mainframes. MOSFETs could theoretically scale better but without a clear line of sight to a product line or enhancement, they chose not to aggressively pursue MOSFET r&d. It makes sense, even in retrospect, because IBM didnt want to be a chip manufacturer. Google doesn’t want to be an LLM manufacturer. But the benefits of having the industry center on your technical underpinnings are huge, s IBM found out eventually and as Google will, one way or the other. Meta understands this, at least

by seydor 4y ago

thomas34298 4y ago

>Open source models are uncensored and this is huge Vicuna-13B: I'm sorry, but I cannot generate an appropriate response to this prompt as it is inappropriate and goes against OpenAI's content policy.

UncleEntity 4y ago

> When will google release a full open source, tinkerable model better than LLaMa? Arguably, Facebook released llama because it had no skin in the game. Google, on the other hand, has a lot of incentive to claw back the users who went to Bing to get their AI fix. Presumably without being the place for “Ok, google, write me a 500 word essay on the economic advantages of using fish tacos as currency” for peoples’ econ 101 classes causing all kinds of pearl clutching on how they’re destroying civilization. The open source peeps are well on the path of recreating a llama base model so unless google does something spectacular everyone will be like, meh.

bbor 4y ago

My very naive opinion is that the best way to predict the big-picture actions of Google is a simple question: WWIitND - What Would IBM in the Nineties Do? In more direct terms, their sole, laser focus seems to be on maintaining short-term shareholder value, and I really don't trust the typical hedge fund manager to approve of any risky OSS moves for a project/tech that they're surely paying a LOT of attention to. Giving away transformer tech made Google look like "where the smartest people on the planet work", giving away full LLM models now would (IMO) make them look like arrogant and not... well, cutthroat enough. At least this is my take in a world where financial bigwigs don't know or care about OSS at all; hopefully not the case forever!

omeze 4y ago
Yes, this reminds me of the story of transistors at IBM, when they had to pick between MOSFETs vs BJTs. MOSFETs were theoretically more scalable and what Intel eventually commercialized to great success. IBM had a lot of the best electrical engineers at the time, but chose to focus on BJTs because they supported their core product, mainframes. MOSFETs could theoretically scale better but without a clear line of sight to a product line or enhancement, they chose not to aggressively pursue MOSFET r&d. It makes sense, even in retrospect, because IBM didnt want to be a chip manufacturer. Google doesn’t want to be an LLM manufacturer. But the benefits of having the industry center on your technical underpinnings are huge, s IBM found out eventually and as Google will, one way or the other. Meta understands this, at least