3 ms·
I for one applaud them for being cautious.
by Tepix 6mo ago
I for one applaud them for being cautious.
- LoganDark 6mo agoBeing cautious is fine. Farming hype around something that may as well not exist for us should be discouraged. I do appreciate the research outputs.
- Archit3ch 6mo agoDon't worry, in 6-8 months the open models will catch up. Or I guess _do_ worry? ;)
- LoganDark 6mo agoOpen models still haven't caught up to ChatGPT's initial release in 2022. Now that the training data is so contaminated (internet is now mostly LLM slop), they may never. Also, OpenAI's only real moat used to be the quality of their training data from scraping the pre-GPT-3.5 Internet, but it looks like even they've scratched that too.
- Philpax 6mo agoEr, what? We've had open models that can outperform ChatGPT 3.5 for several years now, and they can run entirely on your phone these days. There is no metric by which 3.5 has not been exceeded.
- LoganDark 6mo agoNot in the creative writing I care about. I've been looking for years and trying new models practically every month, including closed, hosted models. None of them approach the quality of the logs I have from that original release.
- cruffle_duffle 6mo agoCautious for what? Unchecked doomerism? Just release the damn models. Do it in phases, roll it out slowly if they are so damn worried about "safety". The real reason they aren't releasing it yet is probably it eats TPU for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and inbetween.
- stratos123 6mo ago> Cautious for what? How about "bad agents acquiring dozens of new zero-days and using them to compromise any company or nation they want"? It's not exactly hard to see why you wouldn't want public access to a model significantly better than Opus in cybersecurity.
- poszlem 6mo agoBad agents already have dozens of zero-days they can use.