OpenAI continues to develop core AI offered over API. Microsoft builds the developer ecosystem around it -- that's Sam's expertise anyway. Microsoft has made a bunch of investment in the developer ecosystem in GitHub and that fits the theme. Assuming Sam sticks around.
Also, the way the tweet is worded (looking forward to working with OpenAI), seems like its a truce negotiated by Satya?
I doubt it would be hard for Microsoft to rebuild, Microsoft Research has made many excellent contributions to transformers for many years now, DeepSpeed is a notable example.
I don’t think they’ve had the will/need to have done this but they most likely already have the talent.
Much as LLM is essentially industrial strength gaslighting, so is the meta around it.
It's not so important. There's not much there. No it's not going to take your jobs.
I am old enough to remember not only the How Blockchain Is Solving World Hunger articles but the paperless office claims as well -- I was born within a few weeks of the publication of the (in)famous "The Office of the Future" article from BusinessWeek.
Didn't happen.
No, a plausible sentence generator is just that: the next hype.
In fact some of the hustlers behind it are the same as those who have hustled crypto. Someone got to hold the bag on that one but it wasn't the rich white techbros. So it'll be here. Once enough companies get burned when the stochastic parrot botches something badly enough to get a massive fine from a regulator or a devastating lawsuit, everyone will run for the hills. And again... it won't be the VCs holding the bag. Guess who will be. Guess why AI is so badly hyped.
If you think the ChatGPT release happening within a few weeks of the collapse of FTX is a coincidence I have ... well, not a bridge but an AI hype to sell to you and in fact you already bought it.
OpenAI is doing a lot more work than just a LLM, despite that being there headline product for now. I'd rather have OpenAI leading the way than Microsoft or Google in this stuff. Despite it's own issues.
I get your pessimism, but the same has been said about a lot of tech that did go on to change the world, just because a lot of people made a lot of noise about previous tech that failed to come to anything doesn't mean to say this is the same thing, it's completely different tech.
A lot of OpenAI's products are out in the real world and I use them everyday, I never touched Crypto, now maybe LLM's won't live up to the hype, but OpenAi's stuff is already been used in a lot of products, used by millions of users, even Spotify.
'A plausible sentence generator is just that: the next hype' - Maybe, but AI goes far beyond LLM as does the products OpenAI produces.
While it can’t plug and play replace and employee yet in my experience at least every dev I see now has it open on their second screen and send it problems all day.
Comparing it to crypto and building that weird narrative you have is just not at all connected to the reality of what the product can actually do right now today.
It's probabilistic and not factual and so everything it outputs must be treated as something the actual answer might sound like and needs to be counterchecked anyways. If I am researching the actual answer already then why bother?
Is it true? Lot of folks have left the OpenAI board recently (Musk, Hoffman etc). For various reasons but its not that everyone in SV is happy in the direction OpenAI was going.
Plus giant competitors like Google, Facebook might step in to fill the void.
The problem is one that we are intimately familiar with. At my previous company, these engineering hurdles prevented us from shipping ML projects that had the potential to make bottom-line impact.
Profiles is a data unification product that allows you to specify important customer traits, then runs the joins and computations automatically, producing an identity graph, user features, and full customer 360 table in your warehouse.
We created a public project, called Profile Builder, that showcases much of Profile’s functionality. Check out the repo for a quickstart project that showcases the basics, and please give us your feedback.
Citation? FTC against Google doesn't produce much results on Google (kind of an irony :))
Have seen FTC going against Amazon because the FTC chair had published prior work against Amazon's practices. Not defending Amazon but FB/Google are a much bigger threat than Amazon.
Citation for what, increased anti-trust activity from the FTC over the last two years? Sure, here's one article:
> Private equity deals and transactions in the healthcare and technology sectors continue to attract heightened antitrust scrutiny...
> The US agencies have also demonstrated an increased interest in challenging vertical transactions.
> In January 2022, for example, the FTC sued to block Lockheed Martin's US$4.4 billion proposed acquisition of Aerojet, which the parties subsequently abandoned.
> Increased enforcement, combined with the agencies' reluctance to approve remedies, has created an uncertain environment where commercial parties should be increasingly prepared to litigate mergers.
> The ramping up of antitrust enforcement in 2022...
> Since 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have filed multiple lawsuits against major tech companies...
> "The agencies have started laying the foundations for a more interventionist stance over the last two years, and this year is when we'll start to see some of those efforts come to fruition -- or be stopped in their tracks by the courts," Kass said.
And I think the biggest blow may actually come about because of the SEC lawsuit that will be heard this upcoming term at SCOTUS: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-decide-legali..., which will likely heavily reign in the power of administrator judges and the ability for an agency to keep initial fights in-house (blocking litigants from taking fights to the normal courts).
Yeah. You can't expect every swing to be a home run, but you also miss every swing you don't take. My point is at least they're trying to do something now, unlike previous decades. It will take some time and effort to bring the agency back around to being effective after decades of inactivity. That's not going to happen if future administrations put the FTC back on the bench.
The problem is one that we are intimately familiar with. At my previous company, these engineering hurdles prevented us from shipping ML projects that had the potential to make bottom-line impact.
Profiles is a data unification product that allows you to specify important customer traits, then runs the joins and computations automatically, producing an identity graph, user features, and full customer 360 table in your warehouse.
We created a public project, called Profile Builder, that showcases much of Profile’s functionality. Check out the repo for a quickstart project that showcases the basics, and please give us your feedback.
Yeah I'm sorry about that. Maybe someone could download it and host it somewhere (which would be contrary to the license, but possibly in the public interest in this case).
Note that the BBC is funded primarily by what's known as a "TV License"[0] in the UK - I think it's entirely possible they could probably increase ads or something for international viewers but understand why it isn't their area of focus
People - including politicians - have said for many years that the BBC should sell iPlayer subscriptions to international viewers, but they just...don't. They also have a massive archive of beloved content, enough to be a first-class streaming platform, but that stuff's not available even to UK residents.
Probably because with their current scheme they liscens the material for other markets and thus would be in violation of these kind of deals? As well as their co-funding/producing of foreign material. The question I would as as a liscense payer is what they earn through this.
Not saying it's not possible but why it is quite the hard thing to get out of, and not spend liscens money while doing so, makes sense. I would guess someone has made these calculations once or twice too.
Pretty sure it's not that they "just don't" though.
The car show Top Gear had (maybe still has?) great music because the BBC has a license to almost any piece of music (since they have several radio channels in the UK, a musician would be insane to refuse a license to the BBC), but the DVD version sold internationally would replace the music with something generic, I'm guessing it's the same with the version broadcast internationally.
When the trio that made Too Gear a huge show moved to Amazon's Grand Tour, one of the things that suffered was the music, because I guess Amazon didn't want to bother getting licenses to broadcast music in many many countries.
BBC should put its entire archive free online ad supported for international users and ad free for UK viewers. Then the popular items could migrate behind a premium paywall over time.
What you are saying is true but wonder if that's how it should be?
Marketing (via email, push, ad, whatever channel) should be an extension of their product experience and it can be owned by the product/engineering team. I have seen instances where growth-marketing reports to prod/eng.
Makes sense to have more right-brain activities (brand marketing, ads etc) to not come under engineering but growth marketing is often very analytical.
