4 ms·

I have trouble believing this isn't just a sneaky marketing campaign.

dmix 3y ago
Nothing OpenAI has released product-wise (ChatGPT, Dall-E) has required 'marketing'. The value speaks for itself. People raving about it on twitter, telling their friends/coworkers, and journos documenting their explorations is more than enough. If this was an extremely competitive market that'd be more plausible. But they enjoy some pretty serious dominance and are struggling to handle the growth they already have with GPT. If Q* is real, you likely wouldn't need to hype up something that has the potential to solve math / logic problems without having seen the problem/solution before hand. Something that novel would be hugely valuable and generate demand naturally.
- djvdq 3y ago
  Of course they are doing PR stunts to kepp media talking about them. Remember Altman saying that they shouldn't release GPT-2 because of it being too dangerous? It's the same thing with this Q* thing.
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    Because it could be used to generate spam, yes, and he was right about that. And to set a precedent that models should be released cautiously, and he was right about that too, and it is to our detriment that we don't take that more seriously.
    - mdekkers 3y ago
      > it is to our detriment that we don't take that more seriously. Why?
      - FeepingCreature 3y ago
        Because when a network turns out to be dangerous in some unexpected way, you cannot exactly unrelease it.
        mdekkers 3y ago
        Dangerous, how? All this vague handwavey fear mongering doesn’t really do it for me. Specifics are more my thing.
        FeepingCreature 3y ago
        What makes you positively confident that a network cannot be dangerous?
        mdekkers 3y ago
        I’m not making any claims about the danger or lack of danger. Anyway, in the absence of specifics, this is a boring conversation.
        FeepingCreature 3y ago
        Great, so given a chance of danger, not releasing a network keeps your options open. You can make an API available, and if there turns out to be a problem you can close it again, or ban a specific user, or implement hotfixes. None of those can be done with a publically released network. edit: You know what, let's take a concrete issue that could happen today. You've made a generative image network. Five weeks after releasing it on Huggingface, you discover to your chagrin that the dataset that you used to train it contains an astonishing amount of child pornography, something like 1%. Your spot checks didn't find this because it's all in a subfolder that you forgot to check. Who knew it wasn't a good idea to download datasets from 4chan? As a result, this network is now extremely good at generating images of children in sexual situations, and because of mode collapse, it's creating fake images of real children, something which all but the most libertarian consider morally abhorrent. At any rate, you consider this morally abhorrent, and you'd love to work with the police to prevent any further misuse. Unfortunately, your network has been downloaded at least ten thousand times and it has already been fine-tuned to be even better at child porn by the nice folks at <insert dubious discord here>. Now you have an appointment with a senator in three days, and you have to explain to her why you thought it was a good idea to publish this network for open download, even though you could have made way more money by keeping it closed. Good luck? Now of course you can argue that in this case all the material was already out there. But that doesn't change the fact that you were the one who did the training run, and released the network, and you're the reason why perceptual hashes now won't find collisions on the generated pictures anymore. If there was a limited amount of generated images in circulation, you could just take the API down, apologize profusely, donate 10k to RAINN or whatever and restart your project under a new name. But as it is, that option is no longer available. The point is, we don't know what a network is doing, and so we don't know what it's going to do in the wild. We cannot prove the absence of capability, so we should hedge our bets.
  - dmix 3y ago
    Helen Toner board member accused Sam/OpenAI for releasing GPT too early, there were people who wanted to keep it locked away for those concerns, which largely haven’t come true (a lot of people don’t understand how spam detection works and overrate the impact of deepfakes). Company’s have competing interests and personalities. That’s normal. But there is no indication that GPT was held back for marketing.
- lawlessone 3y ago
  >The value speaks for itself. What is that though? I've seen a lot of tools created for it. Custom AI Characters. Things that let you have an LLM read a DB etc. But I haven't much in regards to customer facing things.
  - dharmab 3y ago
    It's pretty good for customer support agent tools. Feed the LLM your company's knowledgebase and give it the context of the support chat/email/call transcript, and it suggests solutions to the agent.
  - dist-epoch 3y ago
    > Satya: Microsoft has over a million paying Github Copilot users https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-has-over-a-million-paying-github-copilot-users-ceo-nadella/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-has-over-a-million-p...
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    > But I haven't much in regards to customer facing things. How about ChatGPT? It’s a game changer. It has allowed me to learn Rust extremely quickly since I can just ask it direct questions about my code. And I don’t worry about hallucinations since the compiler is always there to “fact check”. I’m pretty bearish on OpenAI wrappers. Low effort, zero moat. But that’s largely irrelevant to the value of OpenAI products themselves.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      > It has allowed me to learn Rust extremely quickly since I can just ask it direct questions about my code. I was asking today about polars, and it hallucinated all answers..
      - therein 3y ago
        As they unify the "web browsing" capabilities with the LLM using its own internal knowledge, it gets interesting because how can the LLM even decide if its own knowledge is accurate or superior or not?
- ghostzilla 3y ago
  > People raving about it on twitter For the most part usages of GenAI have been sharing output on social media. It is mind-blowingly fascinating, but the utility of it is far far behind.
bhhaskin 3y ago
I agree. Only thing that matters is results.
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
I have trouble believing the who ousting of Sam Altman was planned for this. But yeah someone might be smart enough to feed wrong info to the press after the whole saga was over.

dmix 3y ago

Nothing OpenAI has released product-wise (ChatGPT, Dall-E) has required 'marketing'. The value speaks for itself. People raving about it on twitter, telling their friends/coworkers, and journos documenting their explorations is more than enough. If this was an extremely competitive market that'd be more plausible. But they enjoy some pretty serious dominance and are struggling to handle the growth they already have with GPT. If Q* is real, you likely wouldn't need to hype up something that has the potential to solve math / logic problems without having seen the problem/solution before hand. Something that novel would be hugely valuable and generate demand naturally.

djvdq 3y ago
Of course they are doing PR stunts to kepp media talking about them. Remember Altman saying that they shouldn't release GPT-2 because of it being too dangerous? It's the same thing with this Q* thing.
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  Because it could be used to generate spam, yes, and he was right about that. And to set a precedent that models should be released cautiously, and he was right about that too, and it is to our detriment that we don't take that more seriously.
  - mdekkers 3y ago
    > it is to our detriment that we don't take that more seriously. Why?
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      Because when a network turns out to be dangerous in some unexpected way, you cannot exactly unrelease it.
      - mdekkers 3y ago
        Dangerous, how? All this vague handwavey fear mongering doesn’t really do it for me. Specifics are more my thing.
        FeepingCreature 3y ago
        What makes you positively confident that a network cannot be dangerous?
        mdekkers 3y ago
        I’m not making any claims about the danger or lack of danger. Anyway, in the absence of specifics, this is a boring conversation.
        FeepingCreature 3y ago
        Great, so given a chance of danger, not releasing a network keeps your options open. You can make an API available, and if there turns out to be a problem you can close it again, or ban a specific user, or implement hotfixes. None of those can be done with a publically released network. edit: You know what, let's take a concrete issue that could happen today. You've made a generative image network. Five weeks after releasing it on Huggingface, you discover to your chagrin that the dataset that you used to train it contains an astonishing amount of child pornography, something like 1%. Your spot checks didn't find this because it's all in a subfolder that you forgot to check. Who knew it wasn't a good idea to download datasets from 4chan? As a result, this network is now extremely good at generating images of children in sexual situations, and because of mode collapse, it's creating fake images of real children, something which all but the most libertarian consider morally abhorrent. At any rate, you consider this morally abhorrent, and you'd love to work with the police to prevent any further misuse. Unfortunately, your network has been downloaded at least ten thousand times and it has already been fine-tuned to be even better at child porn by the nice folks at <insert dubious discord here>. Now you have an appointment with a senator in three days, and you have to explain to her why you thought it was a good idea to publish this network for open download, even though you could have made way more money by keeping it closed. Good luck? Now of course you can argue that in this case all the material was already out there. But that doesn't change the fact that you were the one who did the training run, and released the network, and you're the reason why perceptual hashes now won't find collisions on the generated pictures anymore. If there was a limited amount of generated images in circulation, you could just take the API down, apologize profusely, donate 10k to RAINN or whatever and restart your project under a new name. But as it is, that option is no longer available. The point is, we don't know what a network is doing, and so we don't know what it's going to do in the wild. We cannot prove the absence of capability, so we should hedge our bets.
- dmix 3y ago
  Helen Toner board member accused Sam/OpenAI for releasing GPT too early, there were people who wanted to keep it locked away for those concerns, which largely haven’t come true (a lot of people don’t understand how spam detection works and overrate the impact of deepfakes). Company’s have competing interests and personalities. That’s normal. But there is no indication that GPT was held back for marketing.
lawlessone 3y ago
>The value speaks for itself. What is that though? I've seen a lot of tools created for it. Custom AI Characters. Things that let you have an LLM read a DB etc. But I haven't much in regards to customer facing things.
- dharmab 3y ago
  It's pretty good for customer support agent tools. Feed the LLM your company's knowledgebase and give it the context of the support chat/email/call transcript, and it suggests solutions to the agent.
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  > Satya: Microsoft has over a million paying Github Copilot users https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-has-over-a-million-paying-github-copilot-users-ceo-nadella/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-has-over-a-million-p...
- janalsncm 3y ago
  > But I haven't much in regards to customer facing things. How about ChatGPT? It’s a game changer. It has allowed me to learn Rust extremely quickly since I can just ask it direct questions about my code. And I don’t worry about hallucinations since the compiler is always there to “fact check”. I’m pretty bearish on OpenAI wrappers. Low effort, zero moat. But that’s largely irrelevant to the value of OpenAI products themselves.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    > It has allowed me to learn Rust extremely quickly since I can just ask it direct questions about my code. I was asking today about polars, and it hallucinated all answers..
    - therein 3y ago
      As they unify the "web browsing" capabilities with the LLM using its own internal knowledge, it gets interesting because how can the LLM even decide if its own knowledge is accurate or superior or not?
ghostzilla 3y ago
> People raving about it on twitter For the most part usages of GenAI have been sharing output on social media. It is mind-blowingly fascinating, but the utility of it is far far behind.

bhhaskin 3y ago

I agree. Only thing that matters is results.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

I have trouble believing the who ousting of Sam Altman was planned for this. But yeah someone might be smart enough to feed wrong info to the press after the whole saga was over.