5 ms·
This is the normal workflow for drug dealers too. The first fix is free. The second one will cost you money. The third one will be laced with fillers and hav
by kleene_op 3y ago
This is the normal workflow for drug dealers too.
The first fix is free.
The second one will cost you money.
The third one will be laced with fillers and have degraded quality.
- courseofaction 3y agothe fourth one will refer you to their sponsors
- prox 3y agoI wonder how much people are relying on it already, to what extent and so on. Would be a good study.
- ChoHag 3y ago[dead]
- dx034 3y agoBut I don't get why they would degrade quality? Maybe compression to save resources? Otherwise I wouldn't know what they have to gain from it. If anything, they might lose paid subscribers. I loved the results for the $20 I spent, now I'm not so sure anymore.
- kvetching 3y agoTHis is why I unsubscribed. Bard.Google.com + the Google Converse works for what I need now given the recent updates. Google has an ingenious approach whereby they debuted with a bad model, and are secretly improving it. OpenAI did the opposite, they released a model that blew everyone's minds and are now making it worse.
- mejutoco 3y agoI would guess to make it cheaper to run, and safety as plausible explanation.
- qeternity 3y ago> But I don't get why they would degrade quality? There are two likely reasons: efficiency and "alignment". To make models more efficient, you have to reduce computation burden. This can be accomplished via quantization and pruning, both of which will reduce computation at the expense of perplexity. Alignment (censoring by another name) also reduces perplexity as we attempt to coerce a model from its ground state into some more socially acceptable version.
- Tepix 3y agoIncreasing profits of course.
- sebzim4500 3y agoIf it's not possible to be profitable at their original pricepoint then they should add more pricing tiers, not make the good model inacessible.