←back to thread

Google is winning on every AI front

(www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
993 points vinhnx | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
codelord ◴[] No.43661966[source]
As an Ex-OpenAI employee I agree with this. Most of the top ML talent at OpenAI already have left to either do their own thing or join other startups. A few are still there but I doubt if they'll be around in a year. The main successful product from OpenAI is the ChatGPT app, but there's a limit on how much you can charge people for subscription fees. I think soon people expect this service to be provided for free and ads would become the main option to make money out of chatbots. The whole time that I was at OpenAI until now GOOG has been the only individual stock that I've been holding. Despite the threat to their search business I think they'll bounce back because they have a lot of cards to play. OpenAI is an annoyance for Google, because they are willing to burn money to get users. Google can't as easily burn money, since they already have billions of users, but also they are a public company and have to answer to investors. But I doubt if OpenAI investors would sign up to give more money to be burned in a year. Google just needs to ease off on the red tape and make their innovations available to users as fast as they can. (And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.)
replies(23): >>43661983 #>>43662449 #>>43662490 #>>43662564 #>>43662766 #>>43662930 #>>43662996 #>>43663473 #>>43663586 #>>43663639 #>>43663820 #>>43663824 #>>43664107 #>>43664364 #>>43664519 #>>43664803 #>>43665217 #>>43665577 #>>43667759 #>>43667990 #>>43668759 #>>43669034 #>>43670290 #
tunaoftheland ◴[] No.43663586[source]
The ads angle is an interesting one since that's what motivates most things that Google and Meta do. Their LLMs' context window size has been growing, and while this might the natural general progression with LLMs, for those 2 ads businesses there's pretty straight paths to using their LLMs for even more targeted ads. For example, with the recent Llama "herd" releases, the LLMs have surprisingly large context window and one can imagine why Meta might want that: For stuffing in it as much of the personal content that they already have of their users. Then their LLMs can generate ads in the tone and style of the users and emotionally manipulate them to click on the link. Google's LLMs also have large context windows and such capability might be too tempting to ignore. Thinking this, there were moments that made me think that I was being to cynical, but I don't think they'll leave that kind of money on the table, an opportunity to reduce human ad writers headcount while improving click stats for higher profit.

EDIT: Some typo fixes, tho many remain, I'm sure :)

replies(2): >>43663754 #>>43663756 #
JKCalhoun ◴[] No.43663756[source]
When LLMs are essentially trying to sell me something, the shit is over.

I like LLMs (over search engines) because they are not salespeople. They're one of the few things I actually "trust". (Which I know is something that many people fall on the other side of — but no, I actually trust them more than SEO'd web sites and ad-driven search engines.)

I suppose my local-LLM hobby is for just such a scenario. While it is a struggle, there is some joy in trying to host locally as powerful an open LLM model as your hardware will allow. And if the time comes when the models can no longer be trusted, pop back to the last reliable model on the local setup.

That's what I keep telling myself anyway.

replies(1): >>43664198 #
1. satisfice ◴[] No.43664198[source]
LLMs have not earned your trust. Classic search has.

The only thing I really care about with classic web search is whether the resulting website is relevant to my needs. On this point I am satisfied nearly all the time. It’s easy to verify.

With LLMs I get a narrative. It is much harder to evaluate a narrative, and errors are more insidious. When I have carefully checked an LLM result, I usually discover errors.

Are you really looking closely at the results you get?

replies(1): >>43664690 #
2. JKCalhoun ◴[] No.43664690[source]
Your experience and mine are polar opposite. We use search differently is the only way I can reconcile that.