3 ms·

Come on now. That's a super clickbait title. The article actually says the race is at a dead heat and LLM training for the same competency is getting cheaper,

Come on now. That's a super clickbait title. The article actually says the race is at a dead heat and LLM training for the same competency is getting cheaper, not that it's "over".

ipsum2 2y ago
The author of the article is known to be consistently wrong about AI.
- tim333 2y ago
  I think of him more as a stopped clock that always says this stuff is rubbish, it won't work, and so who is correct about half the time.
mastazi 2y ago
After reading the article I understand "over" to mean "there is no moat so there is no winner" rather than "it's over because entity X won and its competitors can't catch up"
- daveguy 2y ago
  I'd consider "over" to be someone won, or it's not relevant anymore. After reading the article, it's neither of those. The race is very much on, but now it's clear that it will be competitive.
  - AndrewDucker 2y ago
    It's over because there will be no supremacy.
    - daveguy 2y ago
      Nope. That's not going to make it over, obviously. The race is still on. Just because Marcus called a tie at the moment and thinks it will be difficult to create a lead doesn't mean they won't be racing every step of the way. In what world do you live in where races end just because the score is tied?
      - dole 2y ago
        I agree, I don't think it's over just because another major power threw a bunch of similarly powered models in the ring. I feel it doesn't really matter which country or company has which model open at the moment. Whichever company, open source-based or closed that hits AGI or something much closer to it first wins, period. We're not there yet, we've got lovely conversationalists summarizing all our web crawled answers back to us. It doesn't seem like throwing chips and compute at the problem is the answer, and stifling competition via hardware is just bailing water. I do think he's at least kinda right that it's going to take another paradigm shift in LLMs, traders and other models to some other idea that eventually does it. I don't expect it out of GPT-5.
      - mastazi 2y ago
        The race being over has nothing to do with whether or not there has been a tie, it depends on whether or not people want to run. If AI models become easier to train, there will be less investor appetite towards big players like OpenAI. Example: https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/27/nvidia-drops-600bn-off-its-market-cap-amid-the-rise-of-deepseek/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/27/nvidia-drops-600bn-off-its...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
nextworddev 2y ago
He's basically a full time OpenAI hater, that's his thing.
Cheer2171 2y ago
> The article actually says the race is at a dead heat and LLM training for the same competency is getting cheaper, not that it's "over". Odd, that's exactly what I interpreted the title to mean. "Supremacy" means one side has a total and insurmountable lead and control. That's how lots of China hawks in the West talk about it, arguing that they must do everything to stop China from building their own ChatGPT. The article is a pretty good summary of why no one side will achieve supremacy. And if you have been following Gary Marcus, he's been arguing this for a while now.

Come on now. That's a super clickbait title. The article actually says the race is at a dead heat and LLM training for the same competency is getting cheaper, not that it's "over".

ipsum2 2y ago

The author of the article is known to be consistently wrong about AI.

tim333 2y ago
I think of him more as a stopped clock that always says this stuff is rubbish, it won't work, and so who is correct about half the time.

mastazi 2y ago

After reading the article I understand "over" to mean "there is no moat so there is no winner" rather than "it's over because entity X won and its competitors can't catch up"

daveguy 2y ago
I'd consider "over" to be someone won, or it's not relevant anymore. After reading the article, it's neither of those. The race is very much on, but now it's clear that it will be competitive.
- AndrewDucker 2y ago
  It's over because there will be no supremacy.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    Nope. That's not going to make it over, obviously. The race is still on. Just because Marcus called a tie at the moment and thinks it will be difficult to create a lead doesn't mean they won't be racing every step of the way. In what world do you live in where races end just because the score is tied?
    - dole 2y ago
      I agree, I don't think it's over just because another major power threw a bunch of similarly powered models in the ring. I feel it doesn't really matter which country or company has which model open at the moment. Whichever company, open source-based or closed that hits AGI or something much closer to it first wins, period. We're not there yet, we've got lovely conversationalists summarizing all our web crawled answers back to us. It doesn't seem like throwing chips and compute at the problem is the answer, and stifling competition via hardware is just bailing water. I do think he's at least kinda right that it's going to take another paradigm shift in LLMs, traders and other models to some other idea that eventually does it. I don't expect it out of GPT-5.
    - mastazi 2y ago
      The race being over has nothing to do with whether or not there has been a tie, it depends on whether or not people want to run. If AI models become easier to train, there will be less investor appetite towards big players like OpenAI. Example: https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/27/nvidia-drops-600bn-off-its-market-cap-amid-the-rise-of-deepseek/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/27/nvidia-drops-600bn-off-its...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

nextworddev 2y ago

He's basically a full time OpenAI hater, that's his thing.

Cheer2171 2y ago

> The article actually says the race is at a dead heat and LLM training for the same competency is getting cheaper, not that it's "over". Odd, that's exactly what I interpreted the title to mean. "Supremacy" means one side has a total and insurmountable lead and control. That's how lots of China hawks in the West talk about it, arguing that they must do everything to stop China from building their own ChatGPT. The article is a pretty good summary of why no one side will achieve supremacy. And if you have been following Gary Marcus, he's been arguing this for a while now.