3 ms·

Cannot wait for Meta to open source the LLM that makes Google obsolete. Some startup will put a very simple react UI, with a search box, on top of some LLM runn

Cannot wait for Meta to open source the LLM that makes Google obsolete. Some startup will put a very simple react UI, with a search box, on top of some LLM running on AWS, and google as we know it will be replaced with 500k-3M in funding. The MVP backend will be a dead simple chat API, written with a few hundred lines of code. What an interesting turn of history.

endisneigh 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
  The ad model is no longer needed, or even desired. When the operational expense is so low due to a simple LLM and very few employees, other business models are possible.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Needed or desired by whom? It’s easy to make money with ads, therefore it will happen. Energy isn’t free and people won’t pay. The hypothetical AGI will necessarily require a lot of compute so only big companies will have access. Funny to see people rooting for meta. Did you forget how they make money?
  - vdaea 3y ago
    Training LLM models and generating LLM responses is probably more expensive than... basically anything else we have now.
    - ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
      Its expensive right now. Compute cost always drops like a rock
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      It's quietly broken in favor of local LLMs over the past month. I say this as someone who was a huge skeptic until maybe 2 weeks ago. It's not GPT-4 but it doesn't need to be. StableLM 3B can handle RAG inputs. This is huge. 7B models can't run on consumer mobile hardware: https://x.com/jpohhhh/status/1747451790969184682?s=20 https://x.com/jpohhhh/status/1747451790969184682?s=20 llama.cpp got examples for iOS / Android in December. It can run on all platforms via one library: https://x.com/jpohhhh/status/1748852554920849579?s=20 https://x.com/jpohhhh/status/1748852554920849579?s=20 retrieval/vector DB can run on all platforms via one library: https://github.com/Telosnex/fonnx https://github.com/Telosnex/fonnx
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > The ad model is no longer needed, or even desired. I'll believe that when YouTube is dead and gone.
- treyd 3y ago
  > No way to block because they’re subtly embedded into everything. Which will be super illegal in several jurisdictions that mandate ads be clearly labelled.
zmmmmm 3y ago
Not sure what you use google for but I use it to find web sites on the internet. It's not a problem an LLM is even trying to solve. (I'll acknowledge that LLMs might eat a layer off the top of that where people are seeking knowledge .... but it's never even going to come close to replacing the traditional core business)
- ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
  The URL link piece just requires training with the urls in the data. Results spit out urls. Updating the model is tricky, but the hardest part about replacing Google is solved, and will be open source.
Kuinox 3y ago
Google still solve the "searching", AI still searches, or comes up with facts that they can't verify themselves, so probably an halucination.
bluelightning2k 3y ago
Few problems with this theory. 1.Competing purely on result quality with Google is like competing with Coke based purely on having a subjectively better tasting formula. If it really was better at search than Google (and scaled, was economical, etc.) it would have to be VASTLY better to get people to switch. Google has the brand, the defaults, the ecosystems, decades of habit forming, etc. It would not be enough to just be "better". Traditional wisdom would say it would have to be 10x better (the idea of quantifying a subjective improvement like this is absurd ofc.) 2. AGI aspires to be human-like. I don't see a human like intelligence as anywhere near Google's level for search results. A traditional vision of an AGI would be like asking your clever mate. Useful, but not for search. 3. Even if something came along which was truly better enough, Google themselves would have to not have access to it/something comparable. You would need to somehow have a lasting, huge & exclusive advantage. 4. Even if there was something that was a clear 10x improvement on Google, which had novel tech which Google could not themselves replicate, then Google would simply acquire them. Almost everything Google has done since the original site has been acquiring a tech, applying operational expertise, network effects, etc. & acting as essentially a distributor.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
  The point is that the cost to replicate Google search as a whole will drop like a rock. They have brand value, which you are arguing will maintain their monopoly. But I really dont think thats true. Their business model is built on serving links, which as time goes on will become more and more obsolete. The links are where the ad money comes from.
WhackyIdeas 3y ago
Google search will soon become obsolete by itself. The quality of the results seems to be getting worse by a day. In fact, I’d say Google search in almost unrecognisable to what it used to be. It used to be the second place I’d go to when I couldn’t get the answer in DuckDuckGo, but now it’s like a waste of time even trying. Just full of seo tuned rubbish. I think what people are doing with LLM’s to write poor content has their whole search not able to tell the difference between quality content and just grammatically correct churned out crap.

endisneigh 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
The ad model is no longer needed, or even desired. When the operational expense is so low due to a simple LLM and very few employees, other business models are possible.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Needed or desired by whom? It’s easy to make money with ads, therefore it will happen. Energy isn’t free and people won’t pay. The hypothetical AGI will necessarily require a lot of compute so only big companies will have access. Funny to see people rooting for meta. Did you forget how they make money?
- vdaea 3y ago
  Training LLM models and generating LLM responses is probably more expensive than... basically anything else we have now.
  - ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
    Its expensive right now. Compute cost always drops like a rock
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    It's quietly broken in favor of local LLMs over the past month. I say this as someone who was a huge skeptic until maybe 2 weeks ago. It's not GPT-4 but it doesn't need to be. StableLM 3B can handle RAG inputs. This is huge. 7B models can't run on consumer mobile hardware: https://x.com/jpohhhh/status/1747451790969184682?s=20 https://x.com/jpohhhh/status/1747451790969184682?s=20 llama.cpp got examples for iOS / Android in December. It can run on all platforms via one library: https://x.com/jpohhhh/status/1748852554920849579?s=20 https://x.com/jpohhhh/status/1748852554920849579?s=20 retrieval/vector DB can run on all platforms via one library: https://github.com/Telosnex/fonnx https://github.com/Telosnex/fonnx
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > The ad model is no longer needed, or even desired. I'll believe that when YouTube is dead and gone.
treyd 3y ago
> No way to block because they’re subtly embedded into everything. Which will be super illegal in several jurisdictions that mandate ads be clearly labelled.

zmmmmm 3y ago

Not sure what you use google for but I use it to find web sites on the internet. It's not a problem an LLM is even trying to solve. (I'll acknowledge that LLMs might eat a layer off the top of that where people are seeking knowledge .... but it's never even going to come close to replacing the traditional core business)

ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
The URL link piece just requires training with the urls in the data. Results spit out urls. Updating the model is tricky, but the hardest part about replacing Google is solved, and will be open source.

Kuinox 3y ago

Google still solve the "searching", AI still searches, or comes up with facts that they can't verify themselves, so probably an halucination.

bluelightning2k 3y ago

Few problems with this theory. 1.Competing purely on result quality with Google is like competing with Coke based purely on having a subjectively better tasting formula. If it really was better at search than Google (and scaled, was economical, etc.) it would have to be VASTLY better to get people to switch. Google has the brand, the defaults, the ecosystems, decades of habit forming, etc. It would not be enough to just be "better". Traditional wisdom would say it would have to be 10x better (the idea of quantifying a subjective improvement like this is absurd ofc.) 2. AGI aspires to be human-like. I don't see a human like intelligence as anywhere near Google's level for search results. A traditional vision of an AGI would be like asking your clever mate. Useful, but not for search. 3. Even if something came along which was truly better enough, Google themselves would have to not have access to it/something comparable. You would need to somehow have a lasting, huge & exclusive advantage. 4. Even if there was something that was a clear 10x improvement on Google, which had novel tech which Google could not themselves replicate, then Google would simply acquire them. Almost everything Google has done since the original site has been acquiring a tech, applying operational expertise, network effects, etc. & acting as essentially a distributor.

ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
The point is that the cost to replicate Google search as a whole will drop like a rock. They have brand value, which you are arguing will maintain their monopoly. But I really dont think thats true. Their business model is built on serving links, which as time goes on will become more and more obsolete. The links are where the ad money comes from.

WhackyIdeas 3y ago

Google search will soon become obsolete by itself. The quality of the results seems to be getting worse by a day. In fact, I’d say Google search in almost unrecognisable to what it used to be. It used to be the second place I’d go to when I couldn’t get the answer in DuckDuckGo, but now it’s like a waste of time even trying. Just full of seo tuned rubbish. I think what people are doing with LLM’s to write poor content has their whole search not able to tell the difference between quality content and just grammatically correct churned out crap.