2 ms·

Well, Google decided to stop publishing their research after losing the battle to ClosedAI, which Google themselves started (the transformer paper that Google r

Well, Google decided to stop publishing their research after losing the battle to ClosedAI, which Google themselves started (the transformer paper that Google researchers wrote in 2017). So it's reasonable to think that companies are not going to compete with ClosedAI by being open about their latest achievements until they have something comparable to show. They might have achieved incredible success in terms of inference speed, but not in the quality of responses. It's also possible that they're waiting to see how the regulation landscape changes. Big tech like Google and Meta are under much more scrutiny than a small company like ClosedAI, so they might need to solve legal issues before they can unleash their models. For example, Meta didn't release LlaMA for commercial use partly due to legal reasons. I've heard they're working on the next gen LlaMA w/ commercial license. I hope that happens so that ClosedAI realizes they can't enjoy their monopoly for long unless they become more open about their products.

mark_l_watson 3y ago
I agree that Google and other companies will not share as much. Facebook seems to be an exception since they are sharing models. I expect lots of good work using LLMs under the surface of large existing systems. Google Docs, Microsoft Office 365, etc. I think this is a mixed bag. I like to see popular tools get significantly better, but I also like to see open models, open data sources, public scrutiny of open models, etc. My hope is that self hoisting useful LLMs will get easier.
BjoernKW 3y ago
Even though most people here probably understand what you are referring to by "ClosedAI" I think that trying to coin neologisms or new designations for existing entities with the intent of conveying a specific opinion or agenda ultimately isn't helpful. It can serve a purpose as an ironic figure of speech, but attempting to redefine the entire meaning of an entity or concept by stubbornly referring to it by a different name (e.g., consistently using "service as a software substitute" for the SaaS acronym) seems petty and doesn't add anything beyond the original argument.

mark_l_watson 3y ago

I agree that Google and other companies will not share as much. Facebook seems to be an exception since they are sharing models. I expect lots of good work using LLMs under the surface of large existing systems. Google Docs, Microsoft Office 365, etc. I think this is a mixed bag. I like to see popular tools get significantly better, but I also like to see open models, open data sources, public scrutiny of open models, etc. My hope is that self hoisting useful LLMs will get easier.

BjoernKW 3y ago

Even though most people here probably understand what you are referring to by "ClosedAI" I think that trying to coin neologisms or new designations for existing entities with the intent of conveying a specific opinion or agenda ultimately isn't helpful. It can serve a purpose as an ironic figure of speech, but attempting to redefine the entire meaning of an entity or concept by stubbornly referring to it by a different name (e.g., consistently using "service as a software substitute" for the SaaS acronym) seems petty and doesn't add anything beyond the original argument.