Recent comments in /f/MachineLearning

datasciencepro t1_j7i6msl wrote

They already had this up their sleeve having basically driven research in LLMs and having the largest dataset in the world. It's not a haphazard jumping in, more of a "okay we're starting to see some activity and commercial application in this space, now it's time to show what we've been working on". As a monopoly in search it would not have made sense for Google to move first.

27

_poisonedrationality t1_j7i5r45 wrote

You shouldn't confuse "scientific progress" with "commercial gain". I know a lot of companies in AI blur the line but I think that researchers, who don't seek to make a profit aren't really the same as something like Stability AI, who are trying to sell a product.

Besides, it's not clear to me whether these AI tools be used to benefit humanity as a whole or only increase the control a few companies have over large markets. I really hope this case sets ome decent precedents about how AI developers can use data they did not create.

4

memberjan6 t1_j7i5be2 wrote

Google should make available its AlphaFoo family of models. It's the ultimate game player, as in competitive games broadly defined, which would include court trials, purchase bidding, Negotiations, and war games, but yes, entertainment games too. It would totally complement the generative talk models. They solve different problems amazingly well, but combined, well..... Dominance

1

farmingvillein t1_j7i567e wrote

This is an interesting choice--on the one hand, understandable, on the other, if it looks worse than chatgpt, they are going to get pretty slammed in the press.

Maaaybe they don't immediately care, in that what they are trying to do is head off Microsoft offering something really slick/compelling in Bing. Presumably, then, this is a gamble that Microsoft won't invest in incorporating a "full" chatgpt in their search.

8