4 ms·

I think OpenAI are running scared of Anthropic (who are moving way faster than they are). The last half dozen things they have said all seem to point to this.

I think OpenAI are running scared of Anthropic (who are moving way faster than they are). The last half dozen things they have said all seem to point to this. "New model coming soonish" (Sure, so where is it?) "GPT-4 kind of sucks" (Altman seemed to like it better before Athropic beat it) "[To Lex Fridman:] We don't want our next model to be shockingly good" (Really ?) "Microsoft/OpenAI building $100B StarGate supercomputer" (Convenient timing for rumor, after Anthopic's partner Amazon already announced $100B+ plans) "ChatGPT is free" (Thanks Claude!)

epups 3y ago
How is Anthropic moving so fast if it took them almost a year to produce a better model? And they have probably 1% of the market right now.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
  Anthropic as a company only was created after GPT-3 (Dario Amodei's name is even on the GPT-3 paper). So, in same time OpenAI have gone from GPT-3 to GPT-4, Anthropic have gone from startup to Claude-1 to Claude-2 to Claude-3 which beats GPT-4 ! It's not just Anthropic having three releases in time it took OpenAI to have one, but also that they did so from a standing start in terms of developers, infrastructure, training data, etc. OpenAI had everything in place as they continued from GPT-3 to GPT-4.
  - wavemode 3y ago
    I had a funny thought when Anthropic was still a new startup. I was browsing their careers page and noticed: 1. They state upfront the salary expectations for all their positions 2. The salaries offered are quite high and I immediately decided this was probably the company to bet on, just by virtue of them probably being able to attract and retain the best talent, and thus engineer the best product. I contrasted it with so many startups I've seen and worked at that try their damnedest to underpay everyone, thus their engineers were mediocre and their product was built like trash.
    - vhiremath4 3y ago
      Agreed with the spirit of this post. OpenAI also pays very well though and has super high caliber talent (from what I can see from friends who have joined and other online anecdotes).
    - delfinom 3y ago
      Depending on the state, it is now a legal requirement for salaries posted up front. This is a requirement in California, Colorado and NY. But yes it also helps attract talent.
  - joshstrange 3y ago
    I pay for both of them and I keep finding myself coming back to GPT-4. Not only do I think the UI is vastly superior, I have not experienced a significant difference in quality of output between the two. I regularly ask both of them the same question and respond with follow-ups to both of them.
- manishsharan 3y ago
  Every paying customer Anthropic gains is a paying customer that OpenAI loses. The early adopters of OpenAI are the ones now becoming early adopters of Claude 3. Also 200k context window is a big deal .
  - xetsilon 3y ago
    I don't completely disagree with you but personally, Claude 3 doesn't seem like a big enough upgrade to get me to switch yet. I have also personally found that minimizing the context window gives the best results for what I want. It seems like extra context hurts as often as it helps. As much as I hate to admit it too but there is a small part of me that feels like chatGPT4 is my friend and giving up access to my friend to save $20 a month is unthinkable. That is why Claude needs to be quite a big upgrade to get me to pay for both for a time.
    - manishsharan 3y ago
      I kind of feel the same way. I have a lot of chats in Chatgpt .. I have also been using it as a sort of diary of all my work . The Chatgpt app with voice is my personal historian! However once I figure out a way to download all my chats from Chatgpt, I think Claude' 200k context window may entice me to rethink my Chatgpt subscription.
      - HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
        I've only been using GPT via Bing CoPilot... How does the history work in the ChatGPT app? Is it just that old conversations are stored, or are they all part of the context (up to limit)?
ben_w 3y ago
> "[To Lex Fridman:] We don't want our next model to be shockingly good" (Really ?) Yes, really. They're strongly influenced by Yudkowsky constantly telling everyone who will listen that we only get one chance to make a friendly ASI, and that we don't have the faintest idea what friendly even means yet. While you may disagree with, perhaps even mock, Yudkowsky — FWIW, I am significantly more optimistic than Yudkowsky on several different axies of AI safety, so while his P(doom) is close to 1, mine is around 0.05 — this is consistent with their initial attempt to not release the GPT-2 weights at all, to experiment with RLHF in the first place, to red-team GPT-4 before release, asking for models at or above GPT-4 level to be restricted by law, and their "superalignment" project: https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment If OpenAI produces a model which "shocks" people with how good it is, that drives the exact race dynamics which they (and many of the people they respect) have repeatedly said would be bad.
- thorncorona 3y ago
  influence from yudkowsky is surprising, considering if you've ever touched hpmor, you'd realize the dude is a moron. re p(doom): the latest slatestarcodex[0] has a great little blurb about the difficulties of applying bayes to hard problems because there's too many different underlying priors which perturb the final number, so you end up fudging it until it matches your intuition. [0] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r...
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I find it curious how many people severely downrate the intelligence of others: to even write a coherent text the length of HPMOR — regardless of how you feel about the plot points or if you regard it as derivative because of, well, being self-insert Marty Stu/Harry Potter fanfic[0] — requires one to be significantly higher than "moron", or even "normal", level. Edit: I can't quite put this into a coherent form, but this vibes with Gell-Mann amnesia, with the way LLMs are dismissed, and with how G W Bush was seen (in the UK at least). Ironically, a similar (though not identical) point about Bayes was made by one of the characters in HPMOR… [0] Also the whole bit of HPMOR in Azkaban grated on me for some reason, and I also think Yudkowsky re-designed Dementors due to wildly failing to understand how depression works; however I'm now getting wildly side-tracked… Oh, and in case you were wondering, my long-term habit of footnotes is somewhat inspired by a different fantasy author, one who put the "anthro" into "anthropomorphic personification of death". I miss Pratchett.

epups 3y ago

How is Anthropic moving so fast if it took them almost a year to produce a better model? And they have probably 1% of the market right now.

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
Anthropic as a company only was created after GPT-3 (Dario Amodei's name is even on the GPT-3 paper). So, in same time OpenAI have gone from GPT-3 to GPT-4, Anthropic have gone from startup to Claude-1 to Claude-2 to Claude-3 which beats GPT-4 ! It's not just Anthropic having three releases in time it took OpenAI to have one, but also that they did so from a standing start in terms of developers, infrastructure, training data, etc. OpenAI had everything in place as they continued from GPT-3 to GPT-4.
- wavemode 3y ago
  I had a funny thought when Anthropic was still a new startup. I was browsing their careers page and noticed: 1. They state upfront the salary expectations for all their positions 2. The salaries offered are quite high and I immediately decided this was probably the company to bet on, just by virtue of them probably being able to attract and retain the best talent, and thus engineer the best product. I contrasted it with so many startups I've seen and worked at that try their damnedest to underpay everyone, thus their engineers were mediocre and their product was built like trash.
  - vhiremath4 3y ago
    Agreed with the spirit of this post. OpenAI also pays very well though and has super high caliber talent (from what I can see from friends who have joined and other online anecdotes).
  - delfinom 3y ago
    Depending on the state, it is now a legal requirement for salaries posted up front. This is a requirement in California, Colorado and NY. But yes it also helps attract talent.
- joshstrange 3y ago
  I pay for both of them and I keep finding myself coming back to GPT-4. Not only do I think the UI is vastly superior, I have not experienced a significant difference in quality of output between the two. I regularly ask both of them the same question and respond with follow-ups to both of them.
manishsharan 3y ago
Every paying customer Anthropic gains is a paying customer that OpenAI loses. The early adopters of OpenAI are the ones now becoming early adopters of Claude 3. Also 200k context window is a big deal .
- xetsilon 3y ago
  I don't completely disagree with you but personally, Claude 3 doesn't seem like a big enough upgrade to get me to switch yet. I have also personally found that minimizing the context window gives the best results for what I want. It seems like extra context hurts as often as it helps. As much as I hate to admit it too but there is a small part of me that feels like chatGPT4 is my friend and giving up access to my friend to save $20 a month is unthinkable. That is why Claude needs to be quite a big upgrade to get me to pay for both for a time.
  - manishsharan 3y ago
    I kind of feel the same way. I have a lot of chats in Chatgpt .. I have also been using it as a sort of diary of all my work . The Chatgpt app with voice is my personal historian! However once I figure out a way to download all my chats from Chatgpt, I think Claude' 200k context window may entice me to rethink my Chatgpt subscription.
    - HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
      I've only been using GPT via Bing CoPilot... How does the history work in the ChatGPT app? Is it just that old conversations are stored, or are they all part of the context (up to limit)?

ben_w 3y ago

> "[To Lex Fridman:] We don't want our next model to be shockingly good" (Really ?) Yes, really. They're strongly influenced by Yudkowsky constantly telling everyone who will listen that we only get one chance to make a friendly ASI, and that we don't have the faintest idea what friendly even means yet. While you may disagree with, perhaps even mock, Yudkowsky — FWIW, I am significantly more optimistic than Yudkowsky on several different axies of AI safety, so while his P(doom) is close to 1, mine is around 0.05 — this is consistent with their initial attempt to not release the GPT-2 weights at all, to experiment with RLHF in the first place, to red-team GPT-4 before release, asking for models at or above GPT-4 level to be restricted by law, and their "superalignment" project: https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment If OpenAI produces a model which "shocks" people with how good it is, that drives the exact race dynamics which they (and many of the people they respect) have repeatedly said would be bad.

thorncorona 3y ago
influence from yudkowsky is surprising, considering if you've ever touched hpmor, you'd realize the dude is a moron. re p(doom): the latest slatestarcodex[0] has a great little blurb about the difficulties of applying bayes to hard problems because there's too many different underlying priors which perturb the final number, so you end up fudging it until it matches your intuition. [0] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r...
- ben_w 3y ago
  I find it curious how many people severely downrate the intelligence of others: to even write a coherent text the length of HPMOR — regardless of how you feel about the plot points or if you regard it as derivative because of, well, being self-insert Marty Stu/Harry Potter fanfic[0] — requires one to be significantly higher than "moron", or even "normal", level. Edit: I can't quite put this into a coherent form, but this vibes with Gell-Mann amnesia, with the way LLMs are dismissed, and with how G W Bush was seen (in the UK at least). Ironically, a similar (though not identical) point about Bayes was made by one of the characters in HPMOR… [0] Also the whole bit of HPMOR in Azkaban grated on me for some reason, and I also think Yudkowsky re-designed Dementors due to wildly failing to understand how depression works; however I'm now getting wildly side-tracked… Oh, and in case you were wondering, my long-term habit of footnotes is somewhat inspired by a different fantasy author, one who put the "anthro" into "anthropomorphic personification of death". I miss Pratchett.