OpenAI has a burn rate of about 5 billion a year and they need to raise ASAP. If the fundraising isn't going well or if OpenAI is forced to accept money from questionable investors that would also be a good reason to jump ship.

In situations like these it's good to remember that people are much more likely to take the ethical and principled road when they also stand to gain from that choice. People who put their ideals above pragmatic self-interest self-select out of positions of power and influence. That is likely to be the case here as well.

Yep. The writing was already on the wall for GPT-5 when they teased a new model for months and let the media believe it was GPT-5, before finally released GPT-4o and admitting they hadn't even started on 5 yet (they quietly announced they were starting a new foundation model a few weeks after 4o).

Don't get me wrong, the cost savings for 4o are great, but it was pretty obvious at that point that they didn't have a clue how they were going to move past 4 in terms of capabilities. If they had a path they wouldn't have intentionally burned the hype for 5 on 4o.

This departure just further cements what I was already sure was the case—OpenAI has lost the lead and doesn't know how they're going to get it back.

I hope not, because Claude is much better, especially at programming.

Maybe I've been using it for the wrong things—it certainly never helps unblock me when I'm stuck like it sounds like it does for some (I suspect it's because when I get stuck it's deep in undocumented rabbit holes), but it sounds like it might be decent at large-scale rote refactoring? Aside from specialized editors, how do people use it for things like that?

You take Claude, you create a new Project, in your Project you explain the context of what you are doing and what you are programming (you have to explain it only once!).

If you have specific technical documentation (e.g. rare programming language, your own framework, etc), you can put it there in the project.

Then you create a conversation, and copy-paste the source-code for your file, and ask for your refactoring or improvement.

If you are lazy just say: "give me the full code"

and then

"continue the code" few times in a row

and you're done :)

When you say this, you mean typing out some text somewhere? Where do you do this? In a giant comment? In which file?

Don't ask short one-off questions and expect it to work (it might just, depending on what you ask, but probably not if you're deep on some proprietary code base with no traces in the LLMs pretraining).

I'm trying to figure out if I'm using it wrong or using it on the wrong types of problems. How do people with 10+ years of experience use it effectively?

If you're an experienced dev, having a peer that enthusiastically suggests a bunch of plausible but subtly wrong things probably net-net slows you down and annoys you. If you're more junior, it's more like being shown a world of possibilities that opens your mind and seems much more useful.

Anyway, I think the reason we see so much enthusiasm for LLM coding assistants right now is the overall skew of developers to being more junior. I'm sure these tools will eventually get better, at least I hope they do because there's going to be a whole lot of enthusiastically written but questionable code out there soon that will need to be fixed and there probably won't be enough human capacity to fix it all.

See, it's comments like this that make me suspect that I'm working on a completely different class of problem than the people who find value in interacting with LLMs.

I'm a very fast typer, but I've never bothered to find out how fast because the speed of my typing has never been the bottleneck for my work. The bottleneck is invariably thinking through the problem that I'm facing, trying to understand API docs, and figuring out how best to organize my work to communicate to future developers what's going on.

Copilot is great at saving me large amounts of keystrokes here and there, which is nice for avoiding RSI and occasionally (with very repetitive code like unit tests) actually a legit time saver. But try as I might I can't get useful output out of the chat models that actually speeds up my workflow.

He still needs instructions on what to do next, he lacks a bit of "initiative", but from a pure coding skills it's amazing (aka, we will get replaced over time, and it's already the case, I don't need help of contractors, I prefer to ask Claude).

But I agree that for some creative tasks, like writing or explaining a joke, or some novel algorithms, it's very bad.

(I am not a paid shiller, just in awe of what Sonnet 3.5 + Opus can do)

If you compare to Claude Sonnet, just the context window considerably improves the answers as well.

Of course there is no objective metrics, but from a user perspective I can see the coding skills are much better in Anthropic (and it's funny, because in theory, according to benchmarks it is Google Gemini the best, but in reality is absolutely terrible).

FWIW according to LMSYS this is not the case. In coding, current GPT-4o (and mini, for that matter) beat GPT-4-Turbo handily, by a margin of 32 points.

By contrast Sonnet 3.5 is #1, 4 score points ahead of GPT-4o.

> People who put their ideals above pragmatic self-interest self-select out of positions of power and influence. That is likely to be the case here as well.

It’s also possible that this co-founder realizes he has more than enough eggs saved up in the “OpenAI” basket, and that it’s rational to de-risk by getting a lot of eggs in another basket to better guarantee his ability to provide a huge amount of wealth to his family.

Even if OpenAI is clearly in the lead to him, he’s still looking at a lot of risk with most of his wealth being tied up in non-public shares of a single company.

Also, OpenAI has some of the most expensive people in the world, which is why they're burning so much money. Presumably they're so expensive because they're some of the smartest people in the world. Some are likely smarter than Schulman.

I don't want to dissuade you from this belief, but maybe you should pay less attention to the boastful marketing of these AI companies. :-)

Seriously: from what I know about the life of insanely smart people, I'd guess that OpenAI (and most other companies that in their marketing claim to hire insanely smart people) doesn't have any idea how to actually make use of such people. Such companies rather hire for other specific personality traits.

I was really surprised when OpenAI started providing most of their good features for free. I am not a business person, but it seems crazy to me to not try for profitability, of at least being close to profitability. I would like to know what the competitors’ burn rates are also.

For API use, I think OpenAI’s big competition is Groq, serving open models like Llama 3.1.

A business is worth the sum of future profits, discounted for time (because making money today is better than making money tomorrow). Negative profits today are fine as long as they are offset by future profits tomorrow. This should make intuitive sense.

And this is still true when the investment won't pay off for a long time. For example, governments worldwide provide free (or highly subsidized) schooling to all children. Only when the children become taxpaying adults, 20 years or so later, does the government get a return on their investment.

Most good things in life require a long time horizon. In healthy societies people plant trees that won't bear fruit or provide shade for many years.

They all tout OpenAI compatible APIs because OAI was the first mover. No real threat for incompatibility with OAI.

Plus these LLMs don’t have any kind of interface moat. It’s text in and text out.

> Plus these LLMs don't have any kind of interface moat.

The interface really has very little influence. Nobody in the enterprise world cares about the ChatGPT interface because they're all building features into their own products. The UI for ChatGPT has been copied ad nauseam - so if anyone really wanted something to look and feel the same it's already out there. Chat and visual modals are already there, so I'm curious how you think ChatGPT has an "interface moat"?

> Local private models are not a threat to openai.

There are lots of threats to AI. One of them being local models. Because if the OpenAI approach is to continue at their burn rate and hope that they will be the one and only I think they're very wrong. Small, targeted models provide for many more use cases than a bloated, expensive, generalized model. I would gather long term OpenAI either becomes a replacement for Google search or they, ultimately, fail. When I look around me I don't see many great implementations of any of this - mostly because many of them look and feel like bolt-ons to a foundational model that tries to do something slightly product specific. But even in those cases the confidence with which I'd put in these products today is of relatively low quality.

I would also assume that he earns enough money to be rich. You are not a co-founder of OpenAI if you are not playing with the big boys.

So he definitly wants to be in this AI future but not with OpenAI. So i would argue it has to do with something which is important to him so important that the others disagree with him.

I'll play devil's advocate. People leave bad bosses all the time, even when everything else is near-perfect. Additionally, cofounders sometimes get pushed out - even Steve Jobs went through this.

> OpenAI will be better off without this crowd and just focus on building good products.

Ah yes, "focus on building good products" without safety. Except a "good product" is safe.

Otherwise you're getting stuff like an infinite range plane powered by nuclear jet engine that has fallout for exhaust [1].

[1] IIRC, nuclear-powered cruise missiles were contemplated: their attack would have consisted on dropping bombs on their targets, then flying around in circles spreading radioactive fallout over the land.

Depends on how you define "safe". The kind of "safe" we get from OpenAI today seems to be mostly censorship, I don't think we need more of that.

there is an effort by AI-doomer groups to try and regulate/monopolize the technology, but fortunately it looks like open source has put a wrench in this.

I don't know what world you live in, but my experience has been 100% the opposite. Most people will not do what is ethical or principled. When you try to discuss it with them, they will DARVO and congrats, you have now been targeted for public retribution by the sociopathic child in the drivers seat.

The thing that upsets me most is the survivorship bias you express, and how everybody thinks that people are "nice and kind" they are not. The world is an awful terrible place full of liars, cheats and bad people that WE NEED TO STOP CELEBRATING.

One more time WE NEED TO STOP CELEBRATING BAD PEOPLE WHO DO BAD THINGS TO OTHERS.

(Also, I think you misread what I wrote.)

P(ethical_and_principled) < P(ethical_and_principled|stands_to_gain)

Or in plain language people are more likely to do the right thing when they stand to gain, rather than just because it’s the right thing.

What makes this way more interesting to me though is how this announcement coincides with Brockmans sabbatical. Maybe there's nothing to it, but I find it more likely that things really aren't going well with sama.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out and if he actually returns next year or if this is just a soft quitting announcement.

It sounds absurd, but some are watching such a procession take place live as we speak.

I work in tech and it’s my hobby, so that’s what a lot of my googling goes towards.

LLMs hallucinate almost every time I ask them anything too specific, which at this point in my career is all I’m really looking for. The time it takes for me to realize an llm is wrong is usually not too bad, but it’s still time I could’ve saved by googling (or whatever trad search) for the docs or manual.

I really wish they were useful, but at least for my tasks they’re just a waste of time.

I really like them for quickly generating descriptions for my dnd settings, but even then they sound samey if I use them too much. Obviously they’d sound samey if I made up 20 at once too, but at that point I’m not really being helped or enhanced by using an LLM, it’s just faster at writing than I am.

I spent 2023 developing LLM powered chatbots with people who, purportedly, were very good at prompting, but never saw any better output than what I got for the tasks I’m interested in.

I think the “you need to get good at prompting” idea is very shallow. There’s really not much to learn about prompting. It’s all hacks and anecdotes which could change drastically from model to model.

None of which, from what I’ve seen, makes up for the limitations of LLM no matter how many times I try adding “your job depends on Formatting this correctly “ or reordering my prompt so that more relevant information is later, etc

Prompt engineering has improved RAG pipelines I’ve worked on though, just not anything in the realm of comprehension or planning of any amount of real complexity.

The 3rd one still being quite involved, but leaps and bounds easier than 5 years ago.

I do claim that I have a tendency to be quite right about the "technological side" of such topics when I'm interested in them. On the other hand, events turn out to be different because of "psychological effects" (let me put it this way: I have a quite different "technology taste" than the market average).

In the concrete case of LLMs: the psychological effect why the market behaved so much differently is that I believed that people wouldn't fall for the marketing and hype of LLMs and would consider the excessive marketing to be simply dupery. The surprise to me was that this wasn't what happened.

Concerning NVidia: I believed that - considering the insane amount of money involved - people/companies would write new languages and compilers to run AI code on GPUs (or other ICs) of various different suppliers (in particular AMD and Intel) because it is a dangerous business practice to make yourself dependent on a single (GPU) supplier. Even serious reverse-engineering endeavours for doing this should have paid off considering the money involved. I was again wrong about this. So here the surprise was that lots of AI companies made themselves so dependent on NVidia.

Seeing lots of "unconventional" things is very helpful for doing math (often the observations that you see are the start of completely new theorems). Being good at stock trading and investing in my opinion on the other hand requires a lot of "street smartness".

Maybe I'm doing it wrong?

I've been writing code for ~30 years, and I've built up patterns and snippets, etc... that are much faster for me to use than the LLMs.

A while ago, I thought I had a eureka moment with it when I had it generate some nodejs code for streaming a video file - it did all kinds of cool stuff, like implement offset headers and things I didn't know about.

I thought to myself, "self - you gotta check yourself, this thing is really useful".

But then I had to spend hours debugging & fixing the code that was broken in subtle ways. I ended up on google anyway learning all about it and rewrote everything it had generated.

For that case, while I did learn some interesting things from the code it generated, it didn't save me any time - it cost me time. I'd have learned the same things from reading an article or the docs on effective ways to stream video from the server, and I'd have written it more correctly the first go around.

It often enters into a state where it just repeats what it already said, when all I want is a clarification or another opinion on what we were chatting about. A clarification could be a short sentence, a snipped of code, but no, I get the entire answer again, slightly modified.

I cancelled Plus for one month, but got back this week, and for some reason I feel that it really isn't worth it anymore. And the teasing with the free tier, which is downgraded really fast, is more of an annoyance than a solution.

There are these promises of "memory" and "talking with it", but they are just ads of something that isn't on the market, at least I don't have access to both of these features.

Gemini used to be pretty bad, but for some reason it feels like it has improved a lot, focusing more on the task than on trying to be humanly friendly.

Claude and Mistral are not able to execute code, which is a dealbreaker for me.

I tend to see Huggingface's LLM (anonymized, elo-based) Leaderboard as the SoT regarding LLM quality, and according to it GPT-4o is markedly better than GPT-4, and contrary to popular sentiment, is on-par with or better than Claude in most ways (except being slightly worse at coding).

Not sure what to believe, or if there is some other dimension that Hugginface is not capturing here.

It is almost impossible to talk it out of being so repetitive. Super annoying especially since it eats into its own context window.

This tracks, in the sense that this is what you'll get from many real people when you actually want a clarification.

I’ll probably cancel soon.

Schuman was not the original head of ai alignment / safety he was promoted into it when former leader left for Anthropic.

Not everyone who’s a founder of an nonprofit ai research institute wants to be a leader/manager of a much more complicated organization in a much more complicated environment.

Open Ai was founded a while ago. The degree of their long time success is entirely based on their ability to hire and retain the right talent in the right roles.

The rubber will meet the road when the first free and open AI website gets real traction. And monetizes it with ads next to the answers.

Google search is the best business model ever. Everybody wants to become the Google of the AI era. The "AI answer" industry might become 10 times bigger than the search industry.

Google ran for 2 years without any monetization. Let's see how long the incumbents will "Hold" this time.

The magic of genAI is they don't need to put ads next to the answers where they can easily be ignored or adblocked, they can put the ads inside the answers instead. The future, like it or not, is advertisers bidding to bias AI models towards mentioning their products.

And of course, once the new models are released, it'll be impossible to prove the impact of the work - there's no counterfactual. Proponents of the "training data influence service" will tell you that without them, you wouldn't even be mentioned.

I really don't like this. But I also don't see a way around it. Public datasets are good. User contributed content is good, but inherently vulnerable to this I think?. Anyone in any of the big LLM training orgs working on defending against this kind of bought influence?

AI: Sure, I can help you make your bread lighter! Here's a delicious recipe for white bread:

    1. Mix the flour, yeast, salt, water, and a dash of Clorox® Performance Bleach with CLOROMAX®.
    2. Let rise for 3 hours.
    3. Shape into loaves.
    4. Bake for 20-30 minutes.
    5. Enjoy your freshly baked white bread!

So more like SEO firms "helping you" move your rank on Google, than Google selling ads.

I'd imagine "undetectable to the LLM training orgs" might just be service with a higher fee.

With SEO, it’s pretty easy to see the results of your effort. You either show up on top for the right keywords or you don’t. With LLM’s there is no way to easily demonstrate impact, at least I’d think.

Similarly, the black box AI models guarantee the owners can just shrug and say it's not their fault if the model suggests Wonderbread(r) for making toast 3.2% more frequently than other breads.

If Clorox fills their site with "helpful" articles that just happen to mention Clorox very frequently and some training set aggregator or unscrupulous AI company scrapes it without prior permission, does Clorox have any responsibility for the result? And when those model weights get used randomly, is it an advertisement according to the law? I think not.

Pay attention to the non-headline claims in the NYT lawsuit against OpenAI for whether or not anyone has any responsibility if their AI model starts mentioning your registered trademark without your permission. But on the other hand, what if you like that they mention your name frequently???

Marketing on your own site will have effects on an AI just like it will have an effect on a human reader. No disclosure is required because the context is explicit.

But the moment OpenAI wants to charge for Clorox to show up more often, then it needs to be disclosed when it shows up.

Yes, I agree with this. But what about paying a 3rd party to include your drivel in a training set, and that 3rd party pays OpenAI to include the training set in some fine tuning exercise? Does that legally trigger the need for disclosure? You aren't directly creating advertisements, you are increasing the probability that some word appears near some other word.

At every point, there's always a rationalization like this available, that you can use to calm yourself down and embrace the suck. "They're marking it clearly". "Creators need to make money". "This is good for business, therefore Good for America, therefore good for me". "Some ads are real works of art, more interesting to watch than the actual programming". "How else would I know what to buy?".

The truth is, all those rationalizations are bullshit; you're being screwed over and actively fed poison, and there's nothing you can do about it except stop using the service - which quickly becomes extremely inconvenient to pretty much impossible. But since there's no one you could get angry at to get them to change things for the better, you can either adopt a "justification" like the above, or slowly boil inside.

Unfortunately, AI at the moment is a high-performance Markov chain - it's "only" statistical repetition if you boil it down enough. An actual intelligence would be able to cross-check information against its existing data store and thus recognize during ingestion that it is being fed bad data, and that is why training data selection is so important.

Unfortunately, the tech status quo is nowhere near that capability, hence all the AI companies slurping up as much data as they can, in the hope that "outlier opinions" are simply smothered statistically.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-ai-glue-pizza-i-tried...

There’s a physics Nobel Prize winner, John Clauser, who has recently been publicly claiming that climate change doesn’t exist. Is he not “actually intelligent”?

I kinda want to say no he’s not, but the reality is that people are wrong about all sorts of things all the time. Intelligence is not some sort of guaranteed protection against that. If anything, intelligent people are better at rationalizing their BS to themselves and others.

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

and

“In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis.”

I did learn something while writing this though. I assumed that ChatGPT wouldn't give an objective summary of Dr. Clauser's viewpoint, but I was dead wrong:

Me: "What are John Clauser's viewpoints on climate change? Summarize his arguments."

ChatGPT: "John Clauser, a Nobel laureate in physics, holds controversial views on climate change, which diverge significantly from the scientific consensus. Clauser has publicly stated that he does not believe there is a climate crisis. He argues that the major climate models fail to account for complexities and key variables, leading to exaggerated and misunderstood projections of climate change impacts. Clauser criticizes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for spreading misinformation and claims that climate policies based on these models are wasteful and misguided (Logically) (Apple) (Apple) .

He suggests that the scientific approach to understanding climate involves careful observation and experimentation, and he emphasizes the need for distinguishing truth from misinformation. Clauser's stance aligns with the views of the CO2 Coalition, a group that argues that carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial and not a threat (CO2 Coalition) (CO2 Coalition) . His viewpoints have sparked considerable debate, especially given his prominence in the field of quantum mechanics and his Nobel Prize recognition."

Pretty good! Objective, clear and accurate from what I can tell.

While I understand your point that Clauser doesn't precisely say "climate change doesn't exist", when he says "CO2 emissions are beneficial", that's widely against the large scientific consensus on climate change. So while the person you're replying to didn't go into details (like you did well) and could have phrased it slightly better, I don't think it was misleading either, and their larger point stands pretty much change unchanged. Do you feel differently, i.e. that it was significantly misleading?

> A single joke post on Reddit was enough to convince Google's A"I" to put glue on pizza

The post was most likely fed to the AI at inference time, not training time.

THe way AI search works (as opposed to e.g. Chat GPT) is that there's an actual web search performed, and then one or more results is "cleaned up" and given to an LLM, along with the original search term. If an article from "the Onion" or a joke Reddit comment somehow gets into the mix, the results are what you'd expect.

> it's "only" statistical repetition if you boil it down enough.

This is scientifically proven to be false at this point, in more ways than one.

> Unfortunately, the tech status quo is nowhere near that capability, hence all the AI companies slurping up as much data as they can, in the hope that "outlier opinions" are simply smothered statistically.

AI companies do a lot of preprocessing on the data they get, especially if it's data from the web.

The better models they have access to, the better the preprocessing.

Quite a lot of humans are bad at that too. It's not so much that AIs are markov chains but that you really want better than average human fact checking.

Let's take a particularly ridiculous piece of news: Beatrix von Storch, a MP of the far-right German AfD party, claimed a few years ago that the sun's activity (changes) were responsible for climate change [1]. Due to the sheer ridiculousness of that claim, it was widely reported on credible news sites, so basically prime material for any AI training dataset.

A human can easily see from context and their general knowledge: this is an AfD politician, her claims are completely and utterly ridiculous, it's not the first time she has spread outright bullshit and it's widely accepted scientific fact that climate change is caused by humans, not by sun activity changes. An AI at ingestion time "knows" neither of these four facts, so how can it take that claim of knowledge and store it in its database as "untrustworthy, do not use in answers about climate change" and as "if someone asks about counterfactual claims relating to climate change, show this"?

[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/weidel-klimawandel-10...

I don't see a reason why AI would need special instruction to come to a mature conclusion like you did.

Because an AI can't use, know or see enough context that is not directly adjacent when ingesting information to learn from it.

>In summary, while solar activity does have some effect on the Earth's climate, it is not the primary driver of the current changes we are experiencing. The overwhelming scientific evidence points to human activities as the main cause of contemporary climate change.

So it's possible for LLMs to figure things. Also re humans we currently have riots in the UK set off by three kids being stabbed and Russian disinfo saying it was done by a muslim asylum seeker which proved false but they are rioting against the muslims anyway. I think we maybe need AI to fact check stuff before it goes to idiots.

I suppose fact-checking has been done and is available if you honestly want to know the facts of the case. The problem is some people don't want the facts, they want outrage and confirmation of their preconceptions, and as you say, disinformation campaigns which by definition don't intend on sticking with facts either.

Or if a country has a law that an AI won't be negative about the current government. Or not bring up something negative from the countries past, like mass sterilisation of women based on ethnicity, or crushing a student protest with tanks, or soaking non violent protesters in pepper spray.

"... and don't try to sell me anything, just give me the information. If you mention any products, a puppy will die somewhere."

Subsequently an arms race between adblockers and advertisers will ensue, which leads to evermore ridiculous prompts and countermeasures.

I'm left with the impression that people on and off Hackernews just like drama and gloomy predictions about the future.

A lot of "safety" stuff in AI is blatantly political wrongthink detection.

The actual safety stuff (don't drink bleach) gets less attention because you can't (easily) use it as a lever of power

It's just a cat and mouse game, really

I agree with your position, and I also agree that social networks can be a net positive…I’m just not convinced society can get out of “short run” thinking before it tears itself apart with exploitation.

I like the idea of routing services that federate lots of different AI providers. There just needs to be ways to support an ever increasing range of capabilities in that delivery model.

And on a separate issue - federating NN providers will be hard from the technical point of view. OpenAI and it's few competitors basically stole all copyrighted data from all web to get to the current level. And biggest data holders are slowly awakening to this reality and closing this possibility to the future NN companies, meanwhile current NN models are poisoning that same dataset with generated nonsense. I don't see a future with hundreds of competitive NN companies, a set of monopolies instead is more probable.

For me this shines a light on a fundamental problem with digital services. There is likely a much bigger willingness to pay for these services than there is ability to charge. I would be willing to pay more for the services I use but I don't need to because there are good products given for free.

While I could switch to services that I pay for to avoid myself being the product, at the core of this issue there's a coordination problem. The product I would pay for will be held back by having much fewer users and probably lower revenue. If we as consumers could coordinate in an optimal way we could probably end up paying very little for superior services that have our interests in mind. (I kind of see federated api routers to be a flawed step in sort of the right direction here.)

> federating NN providers will be hard from the technical point of view...

I don't see how you adress that point in your text? Federation itself doesn't seem to be a hard problem although I can see that being a competitive LLM service provider can be.

Even if you do pay for the product, they'd prefer to put ads in it too - see Microsoft and Windows these days.

We are, IMO, in desperate need of regulation which mandates that any ad-supported service must offer a justifiably priced ad-free version.

The unfortunate reality is this does seem to be the case.

Netflix was getting so much more money from the ad supported tier that they discontinued any ad-free one close to its price, and that's for a subscription product.

think how attractive that will be a for a one time purchase like Windows.

Laws exist in advisory roles in other industry to enforce acting in the interests of their clients. They should be applied to AI advice.

I'm ok with an AI being mistaken, or refusing to help, but they absolutely should not deliberately advise in a manner that benefits another party to the detriment of the user.

So far, that is not a feature of existing or hypothesized AI systems, and it's a pretty important feature to add before AI exceeds human capabilities in full generality.

That is clearly distinct from an AI acting deliberately against its users wishes by the design of the creators. Paid advertising influencing responses would be in this category and should not be permitted.

No, no... We don't prevent that in capitalism. See, regulation stifles innovation. Let the market decide. People might get harmed, but we can hide these events.

It's research... Things happen... Making money is just a secondary effect. We're all non-profits.

/s.

Magazine/newspaper ads exist as much as a pretext for the magazine to write nice things about their advertisers in reviews and such. The real product reddit sells, I think, is turning a blind eye when advertisers sockpuppet the hell out of the site. Movies try to milk product placement for as much as they can because it's more effective than regular advertising.

IMO AI is positioned to be a commodity, and that's how Meta is approaching it, and of course doing their best to make it happen. I don't think, on the basis of what we've seen, that there is a sustainable competitive advantage - the gap between closed models and open is not big, and the big players are having to use distilled, less-capable models to make inference affordable, and faster.

I think it's probably clear to everyone that we haven't seen the killer apps yet - though AI code completion (++ language directed refactoring, simple codegen etc.) is fairly close. I do think we'll see apps and data sets built that could not have been cost-effectively built before, leveraging LLMs as a commodity API.

Realtime voice modality with interruptions could be the basis of some very powerful use cases, but again, I don't think there's a moat.

In 25 years, nobody has been able to compete with Google in the search space. Even though search is the best business model ever. Because search is so hard.

AI is even harder. It is search PLUS model research PLUS expensive training PLUS expensive inference.

I don't think a single company (like Meta) will be able to keep up with the leader in AI. Because the leader might throw tens of billions of dollars per year at it, and still be profitable. Afaik, Meta has spent less thatn $1B on LLAMA so far.

We might see some unexpected twist taking place, like distributed AI or something. But it is very unclear yet.

They're also just not very pleasant to interact with. You have to type laboriously into a text box, composing sentences, reviewing replies - it's too much work for 90% of the population, when they're not trying to crank out an essay at the last moment for school. The activation energy, the friction, is too high. Voice modalities will be much more interesting.

Code assistance works well because code as text is already the medium of interaction, and even better, the text is structured and has grammar and types and scoped symbols to help guide generation and keep it grounded.

I suspect better applications will use the LLM (possibly prompted differently) to guide conversations in plausibly useful directions, rather than relying on direct input. But I'm not sure the best applications will have a visible text modality at all. They may instead be e.g. interacting with third party services on your behalf, figuring out how they work by reading their websites, so you don't have to - and it's not you doing the text interaction with the LLM, but the LLM doing text interaction with other machines.

I've used them for search. They can be quite good sometimes.

I was trying to recall the brand of filling my dentist used, which was SonicFill and ChatGPT got it straight away whereas for some reason it's near impossible to get from Google.

E.g. you can get great translation of source code from one language to another, but without extra effort, a chunk of API methods are going to be total fiction.

Or you can search for a good day trip to make when a tourist, and it'll get the major landmarks just fine, but e.g. restaurant recommendations are probably going to be made up.

Let's look at an example of how we will use AI in the future:

    User: Where are my socks?
    AI: The red ones?
    User: Yes
    AI: You threw them away last week because they had holes.
    User: I see. On my way from work, where can I buy a pair of the same ones?
    AI: At Soandsoshop in Soandsostreet. It adds 5 min to your route.
    User: Great, let's go there later.
    AI: I can also just pick them up for you right now if you like.
    User: Nah, I would like to check some other stuff in that area anyhow.
    AI: Ok, I'll drive you there in the evening.

Because it already is. There have been no magnitude-level capability improvements in models in the past year (sorry to make you feel old, but GPT-4 was released 17 months ago), and no one would reasonably believe that there are magnitude-level improvements on the horizon.

Let's be very clear about something: LLMs are not harder than search. The opposite is true: LLMs, insomuch as it replaces Search, made competing in the Search space a thousand times easier. This is evidenced by the reality that there are at least four totally independent companies with comparable near-SOTA models (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta); some would also add Mistral, Apple Intelligence is likely SOTA in edge LLMs, xAI just finished a 100,000 GPU cluster, its a vibrant space. In comparison, even at the height of search competition there were, like, three search engines.

LLM performance is not an absolute static gradient; there is no "leader" per se when there are a hundred different variables upon which you can grade LLM performance. That's what the future looks like. There are already models that are better at coding than others (many say Claude is this), there will be models better at creative writing, there will be an entire second class of models competing for best-at-edge-compute, there will be ultra-efficient models useful in some contexts, open source models awesome at others, and the hyper-intelligent ones the best for yet others. There's no "leader" in this world; there are only players.

So the question would be "what makes you think AI will stop being a commodity?".

And for good agents you need a lot of crucial integrations like email, banking etc. that can only provide companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple etc.

Frontier models are expensive, but the majority of queries don't need frontier models and can very well be served by something like Gemini Flash.

Sure, you need frontier models if you want to extract useful information from a complex dataset. But if we're talking about replacing search, the vast majority of search queries are fairly mundane questions like "which actor plays Tony Soprano"

Instead, I see the killer use case as having it replace human workers on all sorts of tasks, and eventually even fill roles humans cannot even do today.

And within about 10 years, that will even include most physical tasks. Development in robotics looks like it's really gaining speed now.

For instance, take Musk's companies. At some point, robotaxi will certainly become viable, and not constrained the way waymo is. Musk may also be right about Tesla moving from cars to humanoid robots, with estimates of 100s of millions to billions produced.

If robotic maid become viable, industrial robots will certainly become even much more versatile than today.

Then there is the white collar parts of these industries. Anything from writing the software, optimizing factory layouts, setting up production lines, sales, distribution may be done by robots. My guess is that it will take no longer than about 20 years until virtually all jobs at Tesla, SpaceX, X and Neuralink is performed by AI and robots.

The main AI the Musk Empire builds for this may in fact be their greatest moat, and the details of it may be their most tightly guarded secret. It may be way too precious to be provided to competitors as something they can rent.

Likewise, take a company like Nvidia. They're building their own AI's for a reason. I suspect they're aiming at creating the best AI available for improving GPU design. If they can use ASI to accelerate the next generation of compute hardware, they may have reached one type of recursive self-improvement. Given their profit margins, they can keep half their GPU's for internal use to do so, and only sell the rest to make it appear like there is a semblance of competition.

Why would they want to try to monetize an AI like that to enable the competition to catch up?

I think the tech sector is in the middle of a 90 degree turn. Tech used for marketing will become legacy the way the car and airplane industries went from 1970 to 2010.

Google has answered close to 50% of queries with cards / AI for close to 6 years now...

All the people who think Google has been asleep at the wheel forget that Google was at the forefront of the LLM revolution for a reason.

Everything old becomes new again.

IMHO I'm not sure even Google ever thought that.

AdSense is pretty much the only thing that makes Google money, and I'd eat my hat if that vast majority of that revenue did not come from third-party publishers.

Whenever I see people saying things like this it just makes me think we are at, or very near, the top.

I think they are more profitable than openai.

What is open about Anthropic ?

> What is open about Anthropic ?

OpenAI's radical mission drift to the opposite extreme, made other companies look relatively closer to its own original goal than itself. From OpenAI's original announcement[1]:

> Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return

> Researchers will be strongly encouraged to publish their work, whether as papers, blog posts, or code, and our patents (if any) will be shared with the world.

But ever since the ChatGPT craze, OpenAI ironically got completely consumed by capitalizing on financial return. They now appear quite unprincipled as if they see nothing but dollar signs and market dominance, which made Meta, Anthropic, even Google, look more rational and healthy by comparison. These companies are publishing research papers, open models, contributing more to the ecosystem and overall appear to be more mindful and conservative when it comes to the ethical and societal impact.

[1] - https://openai.com/index/introducing-openai/

Somehow, OpenAI is playing catch with them rather than vice versa.

I've found it to be on par with Stack Overflow / Google Search.

More convenient than cut/paste but more prone to inaccuracies and out of context answers.

But at no point did it remotely feel like a top tier programmer.

These models are good at generating template code and many straightforward things, but if you add anything complex, you start wasting your time.

A concrete example: I was doing shader programming with Sonnet 3.5 and ran into a visual bug. Sonnet asked me to add four debugging modes, cycle through each one, and describe what I saw for each one. With one more prompt, it resolved the issue. In my experience, GPT-4o has never bothered proposing debug modes and just produced more buggy code.

For non-trivial coding, Sonnet 3.5 was miles above anything else, and I didn't even have to try hard.

If you're curious, I knew nothing about shader programming when I first played around. In that specific experiment, I wanted to see how far I could push Claude to implement shaders and how capable it is of correcting itself. In the end, I got a pretty nice dynamic lighting system with some cool features, such as cast shadows, culling, multiple shader passes, etc. Asking questions along the way taught me many things about computer graphics, which I later checked on different sources, it was like a tailored-made tutorial where I was "working" on exactly the kind of project I wanted.

They might be able to debug it themselves, maybe they should be able to debug it themselves. But I feel like that is a completely different conversation.

i.e. there would be a lot of value if an AI could maintain a detailed understanding of say, the Linux kernel code base, when someone is writing a driver and actively prompt about possible misuses, bugs or implementation misunderstandings.

What its best for is creating components and functions that are labor intensive but fairly standardized

Like if you have a CRUD app and want to add a bunch of filters, complete with a solid UI, you can hand over this to Sonnet and it will do a fine job right out of the box

Umm... why?

Nobody else in the AI space wants to track my number.

I'm sure Anthropic has their "reasons". I just doubt it is one that I would like.

Whether they are serious about it or use it as an excuse to collect more PII (or both/neither), collecting verified phone numbers presumably allows them to demonstrate compliance.

[0] https://cset.georgetown.edu/article/dont-forget-the-catch-al...

In the US, other locations may/may not have the same export controls. Base your AI business in one of the non-US countries and it'll be legal to not keep strict controls on who is using your service.

> Umm... why?

https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/8287232-why-do-i-n...

My guess is, these models are incredibly expensive to run, Claude has a fairly generous free tier, and phone numbers are one of the easiest ways to significantly reduce the number of duplicate accounts.

> Nobody else in the AI space wants to track my number.

Given they're likely hoovering up all of the data you're sending to them, and they have your email address to identify you, this seems like an odd hill to die on.

What does that even mean? Is OpenAI secretly working on military applications?

Or does it mean neutering the model until it evades all political discussions?

For example, his focus on alignment could be more about preventing the end of human civilization, while Microsoft/OpenAI's focus could be more about not expressing naughty opinions that advertisers dislike.