There used to be a team at Google called Google Brain and they all left to go to OpenAI after the employee protests against taking military AI contracts in 2018. Now Microsoft has those contracts and funneled $10B to OpenAI from the CIA. OK that's a little bit of exaggeration but not so much; I guess not all employees left, and Google Brain still technically exists. Also some of the brain employees went to other startups not only OpenAI.
*and other countries are following. Fucking, sadly.
Having said that, I dread to see what the NYPD manage to achieve with an F-35B.
That most discussions on such matters typically devolve rapidly into the regurgitation of unsound memes doesn't help matters much either.
My life is a story. I’m under no obligation to share.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of them did blog about changing their mind after the Ukraine war started. We must still have no idea because it just didn't make the front page anywhere.
Reading your comment has set off an epiphany, I think I get it now, there probably exists some higher-up person who is thinking along these lines: we must always be in a state of war, for if we are, the populace will want to be ready and willing to fund the instruments of war. And we always want to be ready for war, because if ever we are not, we lose our capability to win a potential future war. For our very survival we must contribute our efforts to build these instruments of war. War is constant. War is peace.
But it increases the temptation to use it against weaker opponents.
Without some evidence to support it, this really sounds like a conspiracy theory.
This is blatant revisionism. Military contracts is not the reason Google has been losing AI researchers to OpenAI.
Plenty of other companies had released GPT powered chat bots like ChatGPT, they just couldn't offer it for free because they didn't have a sweetheart deal with Microsoft for unlimited GPUs. Google did drop the ball though, they were afraid of reputation risk. Google should have used DeepMind or another spinoff to release their internal chatbot months ago
I’m not sure that would have been wise. Bard clearly isn’t ready.
As it was, they intially just claimed that releasing a competitor was irresponsible, then they eventually did it anyway (badly).
Meanwhile nobody has even caught up to ChatGPT yet, not even Microsoft whose resources are the secret sauce you think is the game changer, and now 4.0 is out and even more massively moved the ball forward.
1 - https://blogs.bing.com/search/march_2023/Confirmed-the-new-B...
In a winner takes all market, where the product is highly complex, which is likely the case for any product developed since the advent of computers, if not before, the predominant position will almost certainly be taken by somebody, and since it’s a highly complex product, it’s likely no one entity thought of and/or implemented even close to a majority of the ideas needed to make it work.
In fact, it’s likely to be a random winner amongst 10-20 entities who implemented some of the ideas, and another potentially larger number of entities who implemented equally good, or even better, ideas, which happened to fail for reasons that couldn’t have been known in advance.
Just because Search was winner take all, doesn't mean AI will be. What network effects or economies of scale are unachievable by competitors? Besides, Alpaca showed you can replicate ChatGPT on the cheap once its built - what's stopping others from succeeding?
It's probably the worst fear of the likes of google etc, a 100% local "search engine" / knowledge center that does not even require the internet.
I've been running the 65B model for a bit. With the correct prompt engineering you get very good results even without any fine tuning. I can run stable diffusion etc fine too locally. If anything will let us break free from the corporate, it is this.
Have they had their own good ideas? Definitely. Are they benefitting of ideas mostly invented elsewhere? Also Definitely, just like everybody else.
There are dozens if not hundreds of companies that could’ve done something profound like ChatGPT if they had full access to GPT3/3.5. And honestly, OpenAI stumbled a lot with ChatGPT losing history access, showing other users’ history… but that doesn’t matter much as the underlying technology is so profound. I think this really is a case of the under-the-hood capability (GPT3/3.5/4) mattering more than productization and execution.
(Now I think there are not a ton of companies that could do what Microsoft is trying to do by expanding GPT4 to power office productivity… that is a separate thing and probably only about 3 companies could do that, at best: Microsoft, Apple, and Google… and theoretically Meta but their lack of follow through with making Metaverse useful makes me doubt it.)
I’ve gone back to just using the GPT API, unless I absolutely need to search the internet or information after 2021 for some reason.
It is definitely solving a different problem than chatgpt though, and maybe a less inspiring problem. Chatgpt is like an open world game where you can do anything; Bing chat is just a point solution for the vicious spiral of SEO and Google’s profit motive that rendered search results and web pages so useless.
Can't you say the same about Google? Google lives from the labor of others.
Not entering into the debate if this is ethically or not just saying that OpenAI is not much different. When photo services such as Google Photos recognize the Eiffer Tower in Paris they are using images from others.