0x4e

I appreciate your points of view. I’m not trying to figure out the 12D chess these companies are playing nor I’m convinced these are the salvation of humanity. I just enjoy exploring all perspectives possible before arriving at a conclusion. It’s my defense mechanism against echo chambers.

You just made me think of LLMs as useful translators. I know they are not going to be the ones leading to the discoveries other ML mechanisms can. But LLMs are a great way to communicate though to a machine. Before it was only for those able to code, but now that problem is being resolved.

That is not to say that computer scientists are no longer useful, but it is now possible for everyone to talk to the computer and viceversa.

I said we, when I shouldn’t because I accept it. But I don’t think the majority of people what sidewalks to become bike lanes. That’s why there’s that distinction.

I guess I’m more on the side of skaters who I’ve seen get the most hate from pedestrians.

I just don’t like seeing people up in arms because someone says they don’t want a robot on the sidewalk and then the same people make yelling at skaters for doing the same thing. I guess it’s because the robots look cute and don’t need deodorant.

I still don’t understand how these are allowed to roll down sidewalks. They’re called sidewalks for a reason… they are meant for walking (acknowledging scooters and wheelchairs for those who need it to mode around) but we generally don’t accept someone on a bicycle or someone skating.

Either we let the sidewalk become a free for all or we don’t. I don’t think it’s fair to make exceptions for robots on wheels.

Maybe they can’t keep the discoveries secret… idk.

But what they can do with them can make a difference. Especially with the access to compute and resources they have compared to anyone else. So, they still have a competitive advantage.

The one current example I can think of is Google. They have Alpha Fold and Quantum Computing. I believe they’ve seen advancements to the way they work and an improvement to the speed of progress. It’s just that it’s not what it’s talked about.

I think that’s what VCs do. Only a fraction of investments succeed and the ones that do pay off big time.

Now, imagine having a mechanism that will constantly improve, so you can go from 1% success rate to 5% success rate in say a year.

I see your point. What I think could be different is the speed at which things can be done compared to conventional ways of discovery.

Think of a COVID/MRNA like solution for other areas.

Oh, I see it. I’m just thinking 5–10 years down the line not short-term volatility.

Could there be more ChatGPT moments down the line in other areas like science, genetics, space and something we haven’t considered? I think there’s a chance.

I also think AI is here to stay and there may be some confirmation bias from the community regarding open source models. It’s like someone saying back then that Linux was going to take over… (?) Open source software seems to be served for technical people. Not for the average Joe looking for an answer or help generating a social media post or help writing an email.

Great take and useful for the thought experiment.

I just feel like your taking it all as a given/fact. And maybe you’re right, but I’m not that well versed into it to say things for sure.

What I'm trying to get at is that if we’re considering a black swan event, why not consider both the bull and the bear case or even the neutral one and at least accept that we don’t know which one it will be and it may well be a coin toss…

Perhaps using “cancer” deviated things into a specific subject, but it could be anything. A drug discovery, quantum computing, etc.

Again, I’m no quantum physicist or chemist, but as a world citizen, these feel within the realm of possibilities. Just like it destroying humanity or simply just being yet another technological advancement like the computer or the internet was.

—-

I guess the people working on computers could have argued there was a 10% chance it was going to end humanity and so the people working on the internet because AI was going to come about.

—

I’d say that my final conclusion is that we don’t really know and the signals we’re getting from founders, investors, the market, here, and other people we talk to is that NOBODY KNOWS. All we can do is to continue to speculate and make bets based on hunches.

Public closed-source models remain superior on paper, to the best of my knowledge.

Now, consider they have one, two or three generations of models being tested and toyed around before being released.

Those would be the ones used for breakthroughs.

I don’t think the cure for cancer will be the result of the prompt “tell me the cure for cancer. Make no mistakes.” But instead applying real AI and ML supercharged by recent advancements to identify genetic mutations that could possibly cure cancer or other diseases.

By reading the comments I wonder if perhaps OAI & ANT are not going to be “model” companies and they are going to be the ones innovating in many fronts and cashing in for the benefits of those advancements…

What I’m trying to say here is, what if, they are staying closed strategically so they keep their most advanced models close to their chest until they make an incredible discovery. Say they cure cancer. In this case, they are taking that IP collaborating with big pharma and cashing in on the upside of such discovery.

So, what if on top of being just another enterprise and consumer product that accelerates the way we all work and live, it also becomes this factory of breakthroughs and that’s where open source models can’t compete with them.

Just speculating…

AI for me I just another balancing act. Lean too hard on it and it will be noticeable and detrimental, lean to hard away from it and you’ll be left behind by those who learn how to balance it.

I think it's important to see if this could happen on a larger scale. What if it wasn't only French supermarkets but also important supply chain chokepoints of food worldwide? What would happen to food prices?