3 ms·
1) Push for regulations around data provenance. If you train on anything, you have to prove that you had the rights to train on it. This would kill all but the
by scarmig 2y ago
1) Push for regulations around data provenance. If you train on anything, you have to prove that you had the rights to train on it. This would kill all but the largest providers in the USA, though China would still pose a problem. You could work around that bit by making businesses and consumers liable for usage of models that don't have proof of provenance.
2) If you had some secret algorithm that substantially outperformed everyone, you could win if you prevented leakage. This runs into the issue that two people can keep a secret, but three cannot. Eventually it'll leak.
3) Keep costs exceptionally low, sell at cost (or for free), and flood the market with that, which you use to enhance other revenue streams and make it unprofitable for other companies to compete and unappealing as a target for investors. To do this, you have to be a large company with existing revenue streams, highly efficient infrastructure, piles of money to burn while competitors burn through their smaller piles of money, and the ability to get something of value from giving something out for free.
- sdesol 2y ago> China would still pose a problem Not if regulation prohibits LLMs from China, which isn't that far fetched to be honest. I think LLM will turn into a commodity product and if you want to dominate with a commodity product, you need to provide twice the value at half the cost. Open AI will need a breakthrough in reliability and/or inference cost to really create a moat.
- callc 2y agoIf US regulation prohibits China from training LLMs? How? If you mean trying to stop GPUs getting to China, US already has tried that with specific GPU models, but China still gets them. Seems hard/impossible to do. Even if US and CCP were trying to stop Chinese citizens and companies doing LLM stuff
- sdesol 2y agoNot prohibit training, but make it illegal for US companies to embed, use or distribute LLMs created by China. Basically the general consumer will need to go through the effort of use the LLM that they want, which we know means only a small fraction of people.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoThat assumes that only the US is interested in using LLMs commercially, which isn't really true. Even if you can get America to sanction Chinese LLM use, you aren't even going to American allies to go along with that, let alone everyone else. China's biggest challenge ATM is that they do not yet economically produce the GPUs and RAM needed to train and use big models. They are still behind in semiconductors, maybe 10 or 20 years (they can make fast chips, they can make cheap chips, they can't yet make fast cheap chips).
- sdesol 2y agoCanada would be reluctant. So would Europe, South Asia and so forth. The biggest hurdle for China is the CCP. It is one thing to use physical products from China but relying on the CCP for knowledge may be a step too far for many nations.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoMost people won't care if the products are useful. Chinese EVs, Chinese HSR, Chinese industrial robots, Chinese power tech, they are already selling. LLM isn't just a chatbot, it could be a medical device to help in areas without sufficiently trained doctors, for example.
- sdesol 2y agoMost people may not care but that doesn't matter if the government cares. I will not be surprised if countries restrict LLMs to trusted countries in the future. Unless there is a regime change in China, seeing it adopted in other countries may be an issue.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoIt is a very large world though, and nationalism is more of an American shtick at the moment. It is totally possible that countries have to decide to trade with China or the USA (if they put down an infective embargo), but then it really depends on what America offers vs. China, and I don't think that is a great proposition for us.
- manbart 2y agoI'm pretty sure 3) is Meta's strategy currently