←back to thread

261 points fzliu | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.717s | source
1. greatgib ◴[] No.42163898[source]
Indeed, sad that their models are both commercial proprietary and API only.
replies(1): >>42165527 #
2. doug_durham ◴[] No.42165527[source]
Sad that people have to pay their employees?
replies(2): >>42166258 #>>42172781 #
3. skeptrune ◴[] No.42166258[source]
No, but it serves everyone in the "AI retrieval" space better if we continue to make rapid improvements. New models are great, but not the ultimate solution.
4. greatgib ◴[] No.42172781[source]
First, I don't see the problem with conflicting interests. Sad for them is not necessary sad for us.

Then, in my case it was more "sad" from a commercial point of vue, because it is means that despite their models potentially be betters, almost no one use them, and they are not well known. And it will probably not change as there is a high barrier to entry to have to trust them to suddenly start using their models with their APIs out of the blue. Not that many persons will test, benchmark and then recommend the models.

Also, sad on a last aspect that is not inconsistent with paying their employees:

- If you only offer an API but not a way to self host the commercial models, you are limiting yourself a lot the potential customers that are looking for alternatives to OpenAI. This is the same somehow shitty move as Adobe forcing full "cloud" solutions.