Enterprises think differently. They want data provenance, privacy, ability to mitigate/transfer risk etc. If IBM is willing to offer that, there will be enterprises that bite.
That data issue is important enough for some companies to pick mediocre model over llama or mistral.
IBM and other big players are vigilant about these things, and this is what companies pay for.
Their software may not be better in some metrics, but they're cleaner in some and their support contracts allows people to sleep tight at night.
This is what money buys. Peace of mind and continuity.
And more importantly, IBM will guarantee it in the case that they're wrong. _That's_ what companies pay for.
So will OpenAI, according to Sam Altman. Can they be trusted?
IBM has proven itself in various ways over the years, OpenAI hasn't.
While IBM is a behemoth of a money making machine, they put money where their mouth is. OpenAI does not.
So I'll trust IBM, but not OpenAI.
This support contract stuff: what are you talking about? You download these models, you use them. What would you pay for? It’s not clean data, they say it’s clean: why would I pay liars? Let’s game out the indemnity idea. I pay $10k/mo for 12 months. Then OpenAI loses v. NYTimes, ruled LLM training is not fair use, need express permission. IBM pulls the models. What the hell did I pay $120k for? And by the way, you can pay a law student 1 beer to tell you OpenAI is going to lose because of Warhol v Goldsmith. You can do whatever you want with your money, but I personally would not waste it on worthless indemnity.
I know the Stack is not clean, because they included my fork of GDM's greeter, which is GPL licensed.
My words about IBM was in general. I can't tell anything about their models, because I didn't see mention of "The Stack", and I don't know what their models are based on.
On the other hand, IBM doesn't like risks from my experience, so they would play it way safer than other companies.
If their data is not clean to begin with, then shame on them, and hope their AI efforts burn to the ground.
BTW, LLM training is not fair use. For start, Fair Use's definition automatically excludes "for profit" usage. Just because OpenAI has a non-profit part and training done here doesn't make them immune to consequences of for profit operations.
There will be market for their services. Maybe a different one, but there will be.
The gist is still current, but you need to fill in AWS as the current uncontroversial choice.
But I’m pretty sure both models have “we’re not responsible” clauses.