5 ms·

AI has now evolved beyond just the science and it's biggest issue is in the productization. Finding use cases for what's already available ALONG with new model

by kinnth 2y ago

AI has now evolved beyond just the science and it's biggest issue is in the productization. Finding use cases for what's already available ALONG with new models will be where success lies. ChatGPT is the number 1 brand in AI and as such needs to learn what it's selling, not how its technology works. It always sucks when mission and vision don't align with the nerds ideas, but I think it's probably the best move for both parties.

itsoktocry 2y ago
>ChatGPT is the number 1 brand in AI and as such needs to learn what it's selling, not how its technology works. I'm not as in tune as some people here so: don't they need both? With the rate at which things are moving, how can it be otherwise?
- vasco 2y ago
  I guess their point is you already have a lot out there to create new products, and you can still read papers you just won't be writing them.
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  They do need both but it seems like they have enough engineering talent to keep improving. Time will tell now that Ilya is out but I expect they have enough cultural cache to attract excellent engineers even if they aren’t as famous as Ilya and Karpathy. They have a strong focus on making the existing models fast and cheap without sacrificing capability which is music to the ears of those looking to build with them.
  - Zacobia 2y ago
    I love the way you used "cultural cache" here Lol. In any case I do hope whatever Ilya is building is some sort of AI competition to stop this OpenAI monopoly.
- godelski 2y ago
  > With the rate at which things are moving Things have been moving fast because we had a bunch of top notch scientists in companies paired with top notch salesmen/hype machines. But you need both in combination. Hypemen make promises that can't be kept, but get absurd amounts of funding for doing so. Scientists fill in as many of the gaps as possible, but also get crazy resources due to the aforementioned funding. Obviously this train can't go forever, but I think you might understand that one of these groups is a bit more important than the other while one of these groups is more of a catalyst (makes things happen faster) for the other.
CooCooCaCha 2y ago
“Its biggest issue is in the productization.” That’s not true at all. The biggest issue is that it doesn’t work. You can’t actually trust ai systems and that’s not a product issue.
- startupsfail 2y ago
  Ilya is one of the Founders of the original nonprofit. This is also an issue. It does look like he was not the Founder or in any control of the for profit venture.
- senseiV 2y ago
  if the ai is the product, and the product isnt trustable, isnt that a product issue??
  - shwaj 2y ago
    It’s a core technology issue. The AI isn’t the product, e.g. the ChatGPT interface is the main product that is layered above the core AI tech. The issue is trustworthiness isn’t solvable by applying standard product management techniques on a predictable schedule. It requires scientific research.
- tivert 2y ago
  > That’s not true at all. The biggest issue is that it doesn’t work. You can’t actually trust ai systems and that’s not a product issue. I don't know about that, it seems to work just fine at creating spam and clone websites.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  It works fine for some things. You just need a clearly defined task where LLM + human reviewer is on average faster (ie cheaper) than a human doing the same task themselves without that assistance.
  - still_grokking 2y ago
    Given the fact that you need to review, research, and usually correct every detail of AI output, how can that be faster than just doing it right yourself in the first place? Do you have some examples of such tasks?
ActionHank 2y ago
> AI has now evolved beyond just the science Pretty weak take there bud. If we just look at the Gartner Hype Cycle that marketing and business people love so much it would seem to me that we are at the peak, just before the downfall. They are hyping hard to sell more, when they should be prepping for the coming dip, building their tech and research side more to come out the other side. Regardless, a tech company without the inventors is doomed to fail.
- disqard 2y ago
  I'm siding with you here. The same is happening at Google, but they definitely have momentum from past decades, so even if they go "full Boeing", there's a long way to fall. Meanwhile, OpenAI (and the rest of the folks riding the hype train) will soon enter the trough. They're not diversified and I'm not sure that they can keep running at a loss in this post-ZIRP world.
- Zacobia 2y ago
  You are on point my friend. OpenAI might keep going on with the current momentum for several years without a doubt. But they already lost the long term game. The true essence of the OpenAI empire is not its showmen or PR guys, it's the scientists like Ilya. What a shame to see Ilya leaving. I hope whatever he creates is a rival AI product to stop this OpenAI monopoly and put up some interesting competition.
  - Breza 2y ago
    OpenAI launched gpt3 on June 11, 2020. That's probably the biggest lead they'll ever have over the competition. Over the past several months, I've gotten to the point where OpenAI could vanish tomorrow and I honestly wouldn't miss it. Claude 3 Opus, DBRX, and Llama 3 are at least as good at the tasks that I spend most of my time doing. And if Google can get itself figured out, Gemini Pro has a lot of potential.
ChildOfChaos 2y ago
Eh maybe from a company point of view. But this race to add 'AI' into everything is producing a lot of nonsense. I'd rather go fullsteam ahead on the science and the new models, because that is what will actually get us something decent, rather than milking what we already have.
appplication 2y ago
To this end, OpenAI is already off track. Their “GPT marketplace” or whatever they’re calling it is just misguided flailing from a product perspective.
- j45 2y ago
  Or they were experimenting with people defining agentic A.I. slightly before it became more widely popular.
- javaunsafe2019 2y ago
  Ain’t there this pattern that innovations comes in waves and that the companies of the first wave most often just die but the second and third wave a build upon their artefacts and can be successful in a longer run? I see this coming for sure for open ai and I do my part by just writing this comment on HN.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    Yes, "the pioneers get all the arrows". From a business point of view, you don't want to be first to market. You want to be the second or third.
ronald_petty 2y ago
Agree in general. While there remains issues on making/using AI, there is plenty of utility that doesn't require new science but maturation of deployment. For those who say its junk, I can only speak for myself and disagree.
watt 2y ago
> ChatGPT is the number 1 brand in AI Not for long. They have no moat. Folks who did the science are now doing science for some other company, and will blow the pants off OpenAI.
- pembrook 2y ago
  I think you massively underestimate the power of viral media coverage and the role it plays in building a “brand.” You’ll never replicate the Musk/Altman/Satya soap opera again. ChatGPT will forever be in the history books as the Kleenex of LLM AI.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    “You are a bad user, I am a good bing!”

by kinnth 2y ago

itsoktocry 2y ago

>ChatGPT is the number 1 brand in AI and as such needs to learn what it's selling, not how its technology works. I'm not as in tune as some people here so: don't they need both? With the rate at which things are moving, how can it be otherwise?

vasco 2y ago
I guess their point is you already have a lot out there to create new products, and you can still read papers you just won't be writing them.
throwthrowuknow 2y ago
They do need both but it seems like they have enough engineering talent to keep improving. Time will tell now that Ilya is out but I expect they have enough cultural cache to attract excellent engineers even if they aren’t as famous as Ilya and Karpathy. They have a strong focus on making the existing models fast and cheap without sacrificing capability which is music to the ears of those looking to build with them.
- Zacobia 2y ago
  I love the way you used "cultural cache" here Lol. In any case I do hope whatever Ilya is building is some sort of AI competition to stop this OpenAI monopoly.
godelski 2y ago
> With the rate at which things are moving Things have been moving fast because we had a bunch of top notch scientists in companies paired with top notch salesmen/hype machines. But you need both in combination. Hypemen make promises that can't be kept, but get absurd amounts of funding for doing so. Scientists fill in as many of the gaps as possible, but also get crazy resources due to the aforementioned funding. Obviously this train can't go forever, but I think you might understand that one of these groups is a bit more important than the other while one of these groups is more of a catalyst (makes things happen faster) for the other.

CooCooCaCha 2y ago

“Its biggest issue is in the productization.” That’s not true at all. The biggest issue is that it doesn’t work. You can’t actually trust ai systems and that’s not a product issue.

startupsfail 2y ago
Ilya is one of the Founders of the original nonprofit. This is also an issue. It does look like he was not the Founder or in any control of the for profit venture.
senseiV 2y ago
if the ai is the product, and the product isnt trustable, isnt that a product issue??
- shwaj 2y ago
  It’s a core technology issue. The AI isn’t the product, e.g. the ChatGPT interface is the main product that is layered above the core AI tech. The issue is trustworthiness isn’t solvable by applying standard product management techniques on a predictable schedule. It requires scientific research.
tivert 2y ago
> That’s not true at all. The biggest issue is that it doesn’t work. You can’t actually trust ai systems and that’s not a product issue. I don't know about that, it seems to work just fine at creating spam and clone websites.
tbrownaw 2y ago
It works fine for some things. You just need a clearly defined task where LLM + human reviewer is on average faster (ie cheaper) than a human doing the same task themselves without that assistance.
- still_grokking 2y ago
  Given the fact that you need to review, research, and usually correct every detail of AI output, how can that be faster than just doing it right yourself in the first place? Do you have some examples of such tasks?

ActionHank 2y ago

> AI has now evolved beyond just the science Pretty weak take there bud. If we just look at the Gartner Hype Cycle that marketing and business people love so much it would seem to me that we are at the peak, just before the downfall. They are hyping hard to sell more, when they should be prepping for the coming dip, building their tech and research side more to come out the other side. Regardless, a tech company without the inventors is doomed to fail.

disqard 2y ago
I'm siding with you here. The same is happening at Google, but they definitely have momentum from past decades, so even if they go "full Boeing", there's a long way to fall. Meanwhile, OpenAI (and the rest of the folks riding the hype train) will soon enter the trough. They're not diversified and I'm not sure that they can keep running at a loss in this post-ZIRP world.
Zacobia 2y ago
You are on point my friend. OpenAI might keep going on with the current momentum for several years without a doubt. But they already lost the long term game. The true essence of the OpenAI empire is not its showmen or PR guys, it's the scientists like Ilya. What a shame to see Ilya leaving. I hope whatever he creates is a rival AI product to stop this OpenAI monopoly and put up some interesting competition.
- Breza 2y ago
  OpenAI launched gpt3 on June 11, 2020. That's probably the biggest lead they'll ever have over the competition. Over the past several months, I've gotten to the point where OpenAI could vanish tomorrow and I honestly wouldn't miss it. Claude 3 Opus, DBRX, and Llama 3 are at least as good at the tasks that I spend most of my time doing. And if Google can get itself figured out, Gemini Pro has a lot of potential.

ChildOfChaos 2y ago

Eh maybe from a company point of view. But this race to add 'AI' into everything is producing a lot of nonsense. I'd rather go fullsteam ahead on the science and the new models, because that is what will actually get us something decent, rather than milking what we already have.

appplication 2y ago

To this end, OpenAI is already off track. Their “GPT marketplace” or whatever they’re calling it is just misguided flailing from a product perspective.

j45 2y ago
Or they were experimenting with people defining agentic A.I. slightly before it became more widely popular.
javaunsafe2019 2y ago
Ain’t there this pattern that innovations comes in waves and that the companies of the first wave most often just die but the second and third wave a build upon their artefacts and can be successful in a longer run? I see this coming for sure for open ai and I do my part by just writing this comment on HN.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  Yes, "the pioneers get all the arrows". From a business point of view, you don't want to be first to market. You want to be the second or third.

ronald_petty 2y ago

Agree in general. While there remains issues on making/using AI, there is plenty of utility that doesn't require new science but maturation of deployment. For those who say its junk, I can only speak for myself and disagree.

watt 2y ago

> ChatGPT is the number 1 brand in AI Not for long. They have no moat. Folks who did the science are now doing science for some other company, and will blow the pants off OpenAI.

pembrook 2y ago
I think you massively underestimate the power of viral media coverage and the role it plays in building a “brand.” You’ll never replicate the Musk/Altman/Satya soap opera again. ChatGPT will forever be in the history books as the Kleenex of LLM AI.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  “You are a bad user, I am a good bing!”