5 ms·

Yes, they already collected all the data. The same data has had walls put up around it

Implicated 2y ago
While I recognize this, I have to assume that the other "big players" already have this same data... ie: anyone with a search engine that's been crawling the web for decades. New entries to the race? Not so much, new walls and such.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ugh123 2y ago
Which data? Is that data that Google and/or Meta can't get or doesn't have already?
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  Well, at this point most new data being created is conversations with chatgpt, seeing as how stack overflow and reddit are increasingly useless, so their conversation logs are their moat.
  - staticautomatic 2y ago
    There’s tons of human-created data the AI companies aren’t using yet.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > so their conversation logs are their moat Google and Meta aren't exactly lacking in conversation data: Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, Google Talk, Google Groups, Google Plus, Blogspot comments, Youtube Transcripts, &tc. The breadth and and breadth of data those 2 companies are sitting on that goes back for years is mind boggling.
- charlieyu1 2y ago
  AI companies have been paying people to create new data for a while
  - ugh123 2y ago
    Do you mean by RLHF? If so, thats not 'data' used by the model in the traditional sense.
throwup238 2y ago
Most of the relevant data is still in the Common Crawl archives, up until people started explicitly opting out of it last couple of years.
lolinder 2y ago
That gives the people who've already started an advantage over newcomers, but it's not a unique advantage to OpenAI. The question really should be what if anything gives OpenAI an advantage over Anthropic, Google, Meta, or Amazon? There are at least four players intent on eating OpenAI's market share who already have models in the same ballpark as OpenAI. Is there any reason to suppose that OpenAI keeps the lead for long?
- XenophileJKO 2y ago
  I think their current advantage is willingness to risk public usage of frontier technology. This has been and I predict will be their unique dynamic. It forced the entire market to react, but they are still reacting reluctantly. I just played with Gemini this morning for example and it won't make an image with a person in it at all. I think that is all you need to know about most of the competition.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    How about Anthropic?
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      Aren't they essentially run by safetyists? So they would be less willing to release a model that pushes the boundaries of capability and agency
      - caeril 2y ago
        From what I've seen, Claude Sonnet 3.5 is decidedly less "safe" than GPT-4o, by the relatively new politicized understanding of "safety". Anthropic takes safety to mean "let's not teach people how to build thermite bombs, engineer grey goo nanobots, or genome-targeted viruses", which is the traditional futurist concern with AI safety. OpenAI and Google safety teams are far more concerned with revising history, protecting egos, and coddling the precious feelings of their users. As long as no fee-fees are hurt, it's full speed ahead to paperclip maximization.

While I recognize this, I have to assume that the other "big players" already have this same data... ie: anyone with a search engine that's been crawling the web for decades. New entries to the race? Not so much, new walls and such.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ugh123 2y ago

Which data? Is that data that Google and/or Meta can't get or doesn't have already?

jazzyjackson 2y ago
Well, at this point most new data being created is conversations with chatgpt, seeing as how stack overflow and reddit are increasingly useless, so their conversation logs are their moat.
- staticautomatic 2y ago
  There’s tons of human-created data the AI companies aren’t using yet.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > so their conversation logs are their moat Google and Meta aren't exactly lacking in conversation data: Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, Google Talk, Google Groups, Google Plus, Blogspot comments, Youtube Transcripts, &tc. The breadth and and breadth of data those 2 companies are sitting on that goes back for years is mind boggling.
charlieyu1 2y ago
AI companies have been paying people to create new data for a while
- ugh123 2y ago
  Do you mean by RLHF? If so, thats not 'data' used by the model in the traditional sense.

throwup238 2y ago

Most of the relevant data is still in the Common Crawl archives, up until people started explicitly opting out of it last couple of years.

lolinder 2y ago

That gives the people who've already started an advantage over newcomers, but it's not a unique advantage to OpenAI. The question really should be what if anything gives OpenAI an advantage over Anthropic, Google, Meta, or Amazon? There are at least four players intent on eating OpenAI's market share who already have models in the same ballpark as OpenAI. Is there any reason to suppose that OpenAI keeps the lead for long?

XenophileJKO 2y ago
I think their current advantage is willingness to risk public usage of frontier technology. This has been and I predict will be their unique dynamic. It forced the entire market to react, but they are still reacting reluctantly. I just played with Gemini this morning for example and it won't make an image with a person in it at all. I think that is all you need to know about most of the competition.
- lolinder 2y ago
  How about Anthropic?
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    Aren't they essentially run by safetyists? So they would be less willing to release a model that pushes the boundaries of capability and agency
    - caeril 2y ago
      From what I've seen, Claude Sonnet 3.5 is decidedly less "safe" than GPT-4o, by the relatively new politicized understanding of "safety". Anthropic takes safety to mean "let's not teach people how to build thermite bombs, engineer grey goo nanobots, or genome-targeted viruses", which is the traditional futurist concern with AI safety. OpenAI and Google safety teams are far more concerned with revising history, protecting egos, and coddling the precious feelings of their users. As long as no fee-fees are hurt, it's full speed ahead to paperclip maximization.