5 ms·

OpenAI must be sweating profusely after viewing that I/O presentation. Not only do they not have the integration, scale and user base of Google, but the migrati

by kernal 3y ago

OpenAI must be sweating profusely after viewing that I/O presentation. Not only do they not have the integration, scale and user base of Google, but the migration of Bard to PaLM 2 it will exceed whatever OpenAI currently has. Also, it's only a matter of time before their top employee's are poached by Apple and Google.

satvikpendem 3y ago
Well I guess that internal memo was true, there is no moat in AI, for Google, OpenAI, or any other, as long as AI continues to improve.
- bo-tao 3y ago
  What does it mean to have no moat?
  - ducttapecrown 3y ago
    A "moat" is the protection company A has against company B building a clone of company A's product. For example, YouTube has the set of people who have a habit of logging on to YouTube to watch content. A competitor has to convince all those people to change their habits. This is known to be a hard problem, so it's a moat! Netflix thought they had a similar moat of user-habits. But it turns out that the more important moat in the streaming market is a moat of content.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Here's the article I was referring to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813322 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813322
  - sweeds 3y ago
    No competitive advantage that protects the business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat
motoboi 3y ago
Yeah. If people get access to It. In the meantime, OpenAI is hoarding GPUS for the next iteration while happily collecting 20 dollars from users and loads of free work from free users.
sebzim4500 3y ago
>but the migration of Bard to PaLM 2 it will exceed whatever OpenAI currently has I really doubt that. If Google had anything that could seriously compete with GPT-4 they would be shouting about it from the mountains. Not publishing a comparison where they only include GPT-4 in the two benchmarks that they win.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Here's my entirely non-scientific comparison: https://imgur.com/a/HWLgu3c https://imgur.com/a/HWLgu3c If that is really the best that Google can do after working for several months on one-upping GPT-4, that's just sad, and doesn't bode well for them.
  - chaxor 3y ago
    Google in some ways is far better than OpenAI in their AI capabilities, but it mostly comes down to the fact that they weren't making products, when OpenAI was. Deepmind has probably the best research in the AI area fundamentally, and the capabilities they have shown academically are much better than any other group. However, they have been seemingly completely disinterested in making any product usable for the public in the area - which takes a good deal of engineering and glue. So it will take a bit of time for them to make that happen. For example, OpenAI was not the first to use RLHF to train a language model (Sparrow from Deepmind was the first to conceive of this idea). Additionally, Deepmind has far better people in the general GNN and algorithmic reasoning area, which is going to shape up to be far more important in the coming years. That's of course not to say OpenAI doesn't have excellent research or people (Sutskyver is integral to an incredible number of monumental achievements in NNs), but the company as a whole focuses on product far more than fundamental academic research, and that has a potential to creep up on them. Obviously Bard from the scientific side seems like it was probably hastily thrown together in an afternoon by one guy, and then sent to the marketing/we dev/etc group to put it public facing.
dzader 3y ago
> Not only do they not have the integration, scale and user base of Google, Sure, but MSFT does. Well beyond the scale and user base google has.
nonfamous 3y ago
> OpenAI must be sweating profusely after viewing that I/O presentation. Not only do they not have the integration, scale and user base of Google ... Good thing OpenAI has a distribution partner in Microsoft Azure, then.

by kernal 3y ago

satvikpendem 3y ago

Well I guess that internal memo was true, there is no moat in AI, for Google, OpenAI, or any other, as long as AI continues to improve.

bo-tao 3y ago
What does it mean to have no moat?
- ducttapecrown 3y ago
  A "moat" is the protection company A has against company B building a clone of company A's product. For example, YouTube has the set of people who have a habit of logging on to YouTube to watch content. A competitor has to convince all those people to change their habits. This is known to be a hard problem, so it's a moat! Netflix thought they had a similar moat of user-habits. But it turns out that the more important moat in the streaming market is a moat of content.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Here's the article I was referring to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813322 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35813322
- sweeds 3y ago
  No competitive advantage that protects the business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat

motoboi 3y ago

Yeah. If people get access to It. In the meantime, OpenAI is hoarding GPUS for the next iteration while happily collecting 20 dollars from users and loads of free work from free users.

sebzim4500 3y ago

>but the migration of Bard to PaLM 2 it will exceed whatever OpenAI currently has I really doubt that. If Google had anything that could seriously compete with GPT-4 they would be shouting about it from the mountains. Not publishing a comparison where they only include GPT-4 in the two benchmarks that they win.

int_19h 3y ago
Here's my entirely non-scientific comparison: https://imgur.com/a/HWLgu3c https://imgur.com/a/HWLgu3c If that is really the best that Google can do after working for several months on one-upping GPT-4, that's just sad, and doesn't bode well for them.
- chaxor 3y ago
  Google in some ways is far better than OpenAI in their AI capabilities, but it mostly comes down to the fact that they weren't making products, when OpenAI was. Deepmind has probably the best research in the AI area fundamentally, and the capabilities they have shown academically are much better than any other group. However, they have been seemingly completely disinterested in making any product usable for the public in the area - which takes a good deal of engineering and glue. So it will take a bit of time for them to make that happen. For example, OpenAI was not the first to use RLHF to train a language model (Sparrow from Deepmind was the first to conceive of this idea). Additionally, Deepmind has far better people in the general GNN and algorithmic reasoning area, which is going to shape up to be far more important in the coming years. That's of course not to say OpenAI doesn't have excellent research or people (Sutskyver is integral to an incredible number of monumental achievements in NNs), but the company as a whole focuses on product far more than fundamental academic research, and that has a potential to creep up on them. Obviously Bard from the scientific side seems like it was probably hastily thrown together in an afternoon by one guy, and then sent to the marketing/we dev/etc group to put it public facing.

dzader 3y ago

> Not only do they not have the integration, scale and user base of Google, Sure, but MSFT does. Well beyond the scale and user base google has.

nonfamous 3y ago

> OpenAI must be sweating profusely after viewing that I/O presentation. Not only do they not have the integration, scale and user base of Google ... Good thing OpenAI has a distribution partner in Microsoft Azure, then.