That's for Ultra right? Which is an amazing accomplishment, but it sounds like I won't be able to access it for months. If I'm lucky.
Google announces vaporware that's never going to come out, or something that will be out in 5 months. It's frustrating and very bad for their image in the LLM space.
Ultra is out sometime next year, with GPT-4 level capability.
Pro is out now (?) with ??? level capability.
Sadly it's 3.5 quality, :(
They basically announced GPT 3.5, then. Big woop, by the time Ultra is out GPT-5 is probably also out.
3.5 is still highly capable and Google investing a lot into making it multi modal combined with potential integration with their other products makes it quite valuable. Not everyone likes having to switch to ChatGPT for queries.
Is it though? I mean, free (gratis) public locally-usable models are more than just "Llama2", and Llama2 itself is pretty far down the HuggingFace open model leaderboard. (It's true a lot of the models above it are Llama2 derivatives, but that's not universally true, either.)
Claude by Anthropic is out and offers more and is being actively used
One of the biggest problems right now is that there isn't really a great way to evaluate the performance of models, which (among other issues) results in every major foundation model release claiming to be competitive with the SOTA.
If you trust Winogrande scores (one of the few where I could find GPT3.5 and GPT4 [0] ratings that is also on the HuggingFace leaderboard [1]), there are a lot of models between GPT3.5 and GPT4 with some of them being 34B parameter models (Yi-34b and its derivatives), and una_cybertron_7b comes close to GPT3.5.
[0] https://llm-leaderboard.streamlit.app/
[1] https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderb...
So it's a split almost right down the middle, if anything closer to 4, at least if you assume the benchmarks to be of equal significance.
That is an excellent point. Performance of Pro will definitely depend on the use case given the variability between 3.5 to 4. It will be interesting to see user reviews on different tasks. But the 2 quarter lead time for Ultra means it may as well not be announced. A lot can happen in 3-6 months.
Perhaps Gemini is different and Google has tapped into their own OpenAI-like secret sauce, but I'm not holding my breath
Apple does this and it's obvious that they do it to use the "decoy effect" when customers want to shop. Why purchase a measly regular iPhone when you can spend a little more and get the Pro version?
But when it comes to AI, this tierification only leads to disappointment—everyone expects the best models from the FAANGO (including OpenAI), no one expects Google or OpenAI to offer shitty models that underperform their flagships when you can literally run Llama 2 and Mistral models that you can actually own.
Large AI models have tight resources requirements. You physically can't use X billion parameters without ~X billion ~bytes of memory.
It makes complete sense to have these 3 "tiers". You have a max capability option, a price-performance scaling option, and an edge compute option.
Well, X billion bits times the parameter bit size. For base models, those are generally 32-bit (so 4X bytes), though smaller quantizations ate possible and widely used for public models, and I would assume as a cost measure for closed hosted models as well.
IMO, Tiers can be useful when they make sense and aren't just for artificial market segmentation.
Unless you expect Apple to just sell the high end devices at a loss? Or do you want the high end chips to be sold in the mass market devices and for Apple to just eat the R&D costs?
Usually it’s the other way around. Mass market products have thin margins and are subsidized by high end / B2B products because the customers for those products have infinitely deep pockets.
> Or do you want the high end chips to be sold in the mass market devices and for Apple to just eat the R&D costs?
Literally what Steve Jobs was steadfast in :). One iPhone for everyone. He even insisted on the Plus models carrying no extra features.
That's usually what I've seen, but the M1 MacBook Air came out first and the M1 Pro and Max came out much later.
They're tiers of computing power and memory. More performance costs more money to produce. The "nano" can fit on a phone, while the others can't.
Are you really objecting to the existence of different price/performance tiers...? Do you object to McDonald's selling 3 sizes of soft drink? There's nothing "decoy" about any of this.
Yes, actually, for different reasons - McDonald’s charges only a tiny bit more for the largest size of drink than they do for the smallest (which is easy because soft drinks are a few cents’ worth of syrup and water, and the rest is profit). That pushes people toward huge drinks, which means more sugar, more caffeine, and more addiction.