Let’s stop this meme before Elon starts saying he invented OpenAI. He donated money into the OpenAI charity. Jeff Bezos invested $250,000 in Google back in 1998 but he doesn’t try to claim to be a Google founder.
OpenAI may have an advantage in terms of publicity and open access to their models, but technologically, Google has better models in-house. Many of the models used by OpenAI are based on work at Google and their papers, and Google has been able to achieve better performance months before OpenAI. For more information on Google's progress in 2022, refer to this summary on the Google Research blog, which is accessible to non-technical readers: https://ai.googleblog.com/2023/01/google-research-2022-beyon..."
Similarly, if Google (and Googlers) have had access to this or better for some time, where is the step change in productivity / innovation / technology?
I think it's organisational incentives, not tech per se.
TL:DR; Brand risk, and the FAANGs are not as hungry.
Google and MSFT are wary of deploying tech that gets caught saying super racist or nazi stuff (MSFT have been badly burned before) and they already have big income streams, they didn't feel strong pressure to "ship".
OpenAI has less to lose, more to gain and people are more tolerant of janky cutting edge products dressed in "startup" branding.
It's in the article I linked. They deployed models similar to Codex, like LLM, and saw a small boost in productivity. They have also deployed many other models internally.
I doubt they are truly exceeding them. At least not by a margin that could not be closed. If you actually read the article, it mentions that Deepmind has their own chatbot, but wants to have citation in place before releasing it. In my opinion, that is the safe thing to do.
Also my opinion, but I would argue that AlphaFold is much more impressive and significant for humanity than chatGPT. I also think that openAI could not reproduce AlphaFold with the same ease that Deepmind could reproduce chatGPT.
Well Internally it was reported a couple weeks after ChatGPT's announcement and release that google has a "Code Red" meeting about it, and at that time it was reported that ChatGPT was significantly better than what Google had.
Now it is known how accurate that was, or if even internally to Google they communicate well enough to know that all teams are doing or capable of.
>>Also my opinion, but I would argue that AlphaFold is much more impressive and significant for humanity than chatGPT.
I think that is short sighted and biased. That is in some ways comparing Vaccine technology to social media, and I would be hard pressed to say what was more "significant for humanity"
It was less that ChatGPT is better than LaMDA and more that the tech everyone was keeping away from society "for its own good" had been released and people were realizing it could finally threaten Search.
And this is probably not true, since "Code Red" has a very specific meaning internally that doesn't apply here. The various codes cover various different timelines. "Strategic risk to the company over a period of months or years" isn't described as "Code Red."
It’s not when the context of “all along” is in question. Someone is accusing this person of changing their tone only because it’s convenient and TFA is that supposed change in tone.
The fact is that much less kids or people playing Go now, and competitions are not getting nearly as much attention as before. Putting two strong statements without any evidence does not mean anything.
The debate over the causes of (perceived?) decline of Go in the east predates AlphaGo and most theories involve straightforward geopolitics more than any AI conspiracy theory.
In the west it still seems to only be driving more interest in the game.
technically no, because they are referring to AlphaGo, not DM.
DM's results in protein structure prediction are world-class breakthrough work (well, it was last year; now it's routine, having been duplicated by many others). At least in my mind (I'm an ex-biophysicist with a long-term interest in seeing ML applied to biology problems like structure prediction) that is a truly long-term result that demonstrated that, at least for some short period of time, DM was way ahead of everybody else in the field. They also published the details and made large-scale predictions.
AlphaGo was the tipping point, demonstrating that machines can be effective in a high-level/'creative' field with a vast search space, much larger than chess using training rather than hand-written algorithms (that don't translate to other fields). No one expected Go to be solved to the degree and manner of AlphaGo for generations. It was the start of the great acceleration in ML since Deep RNN re-ignited the field.
Is it true that AlphaGo killed the Go community ? I mean I'm sure there are still Go players, but has AlphaGo had a significant impact on the Go community?
I can't speak to its effects in Asia where I can imagine there's been some more direct economic impact, but as a long-time casual player in Europe, interest from my social groups has mostly (but slightly) risen post-AlphaGo.
As an interesting side note, though, software (AI?) has definitely introduced a new dynamic to professional chess, and has very recently caused a lot of controversy (when used for cheating).
> When asked to confirm or deny whether the independent ethics board rumored to have been set up as part of the Google acquisition actually exists, he says he can’t, because it’s “all confidential.”
Why would the existence of an independent ethics board be confidential? How could it be independent if it’s secret?
I can see why you don't want journalists doxxing members of the ethics board... They're there for their expertise, not to be figureheads or public speakers.
50 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadOpenAI may have an advantage in terms of publicity and open access to their models, but technologically, Google has better models in-house. Many of the models used by OpenAI are based on work at Google and their papers, and Google has been able to achieve better performance months before OpenAI. For more information on Google's progress in 2022, refer to this summary on the Google Research blog, which is accessible to non-technical readers: https://ai.googleblog.com/2023/01/google-research-2022-beyon..."
TL:DR; Brand risk, and the FAANGs are not as hungry.
Google and MSFT are wary of deploying tech that gets caught saying super racist or nazi stuff (MSFT have been badly burned before) and they already have big income streams, they didn't feel strong pressure to "ship".
OpenAI has less to lose, more to gain and people are more tolerant of janky cutting edge products dressed in "startup" branding.
They have a projection of $200M revenue in 2023 and $1bn in 2024.
https://www.reuters.com/business/chatgpt-owner-openai-projec...
Huh? The only thing open about openai is the name. Everything else is proprietary and tightly locked down.
Also my opinion, but I would argue that AlphaFold is much more impressive and significant for humanity than chatGPT. I also think that openAI could not reproduce AlphaFold with the same ease that Deepmind could reproduce chatGPT.
Now it is known how accurate that was, or if even internally to Google they communicate well enough to know that all teams are doing or capable of.
>>Also my opinion, but I would argue that AlphaFold is much more impressive and significant for humanity than chatGPT.
I think that is short sighted and biased. That is in some ways comparing Vaccine technology to social media, and I would be hard pressed to say what was more "significant for humanity"
Don't be intentionally vague. What is a 'code red'?
Code Red involves an extremely short timeframe to address the issue.
Just ignore.
His Lex Fridman interview was very interesting too: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfr50f6ZBvo.
What actually AlphaGo accomplish other than killing the Go community?
In the west it still seems to only be driving more interest in the game.
> The fact
Is perhaps not so factual...
DM's results in protein structure prediction are world-class breakthrough work (well, it was last year; now it's routine, having been duplicated by many others). At least in my mind (I'm an ex-biophysicist with a long-term interest in seeing ML applied to biology problems like structure prediction) that is a truly long-term result that demonstrated that, at least for some short period of time, DM was way ahead of everybody else in the field. They also published the details and made large-scale predictions.
AI has been better than humans at chess for years and chess is still going strong
OK, but is he right?
Why would the existence of an independent ethics board be confidential? How could it be independent if it’s secret?
http://web.archive.org/web/20230121041850/https://time.com/6...