> Good luck competing with Microsoft, Facebook and Google
Funny, considering people said the same thing about OpenAI and look who is eating FAANGs lunch now when it comes to AI?
Funny, considering people said the same thing about OpenAI and look who is eating FAANGs lunch now when it comes to AI?
Precisely how is OpenAI eating anyone's lunch? This is a serious question. Is OpenAI fantastically profitable? Does it have a proprietary moat that changes its margins in a way that no other competitor can overcome? Does it benefit from network effects that lead to a natural monopoly?
From my mole's eye view I see a raft of "use AI on task X" applications that are incremental improvements on the underlying products, not game-changing products themselves. I also see insane equity valuations, which look more like Gilded Age railroad speculation than actual proof it's different this time. [0]
Don't get me wrong. LLMs have some pretty amazing capabilities. The fact that they can perform what appears to be reasoning on huge pools of data is fascinating. But it seems premature to say that anyone has won here.
[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/robber-baron-gamble-r...
Because they made, maintain and offer GPT-4 which is currently the top-of-the-line LLM available. GPT-3 was also top-of-the-line when it launched, and they've proven they can iterate on the model and launch better ones.
Currently, both open and non-models are just about barely competitive with GPT-3.5, but none is close to GPT-4.
Even if they aren't profitable today, it's hard to imagine they won't be able to monetize things better, since their model is way ahead of any other model.
That is, they manage to get that far before the company collapses from the inside, which seems more and more likely everyday.
OpenAI is part of the battle between big tech companies.
OpenAI is probably turning down multi-billion dollar investment offers on a weekly basis.
I tried Bard yesterday (Im late like that) and I'm not switching back to a competitor anytime soon. The UX was smoother I found and i was blown away by the multimodal thing. It generated some python and the picture of a graph the python is supposed to draw, it was awesome experience. I told myself I trusted Google more and it integrates with their other apps so I could search my emails.
I mean, they are clearly not f-ing around. They're going Iron-Mike on it rather. Which is the point of parent comment.
I use both daily (I use ChatGPT on my phone and at home, Bard at work because work doesn't allow ChatGPT). ChatGPT 4 still provides the highest quality answers to the range of questions I'm interested in. Bard's getting better with Gemini but it's still not good.
Claude is great at summarizing PDFs and has one of the longest context windows, but the quality of answers it has to general questions is still lacking. Outside of summarization, I have little confidence in Claude's Q&A abilities.
I've also been using Perplexity.ai and I would say it hits a sweet spot and is impressive. It's essentially a RAG-based search engine that's fast and snappy and it works much better than Bing or ChatGPT Bing. Because it's primarily RAG driven, the content is primarily external and you get links to original sources so you can verify the answer. This means the level of hallucination is lower than foundational models. It's become a practical tool for me. It's CoPilot feature, which asks clarifying questions about your query, has been helpful for finding new products. For instance, I was looking for luggage packing cubes that convert to hanging cubes. It's a known product class but I didn't know the lingo, but over a few clarifying iterations, it was able to help me find the right product.
That is what worries me about the Google Bard; it rarely gives references to its answers so I'm not sure if I can trust it or not but you can double check the answer by Google Bard searching it on Google Search and then giving you the source and its textual reference.
There is the G button that you click after the answer appears which double-checks the result, but it only underlines parts of the answer that show it was or wasn't able to corroborate with search results. It doesn't seem to provide links to the relevant results themselves.
Whereas wiht Perplexity, the links are part of the answer.
[1] https://searchengineland.com/google-explains-why-bard-rarely...
[2] https://www.seroundtable.com/google-bard-wont-link-to-source...
OpenAI is a completely different story and setup than Mistral.