Submitted by Surur t3_10h4wls in singularity
WillKane052 t1_j56obta wrote
I will believe it when I see it.
canadian-weed t1_j56zjy1 wrote
same, dont trust them to release fuck all
sprucenoose t1_j58u3b0 wrote
Google doesn't want relax their rules? They don't want to compete with better AI? I think they do.
visarga t1_j59q1t1 wrote
I think Google wishes it was 2013 not 2023, so they don't have to sacrifice their ad-driven revenue.
Nobody's going to wade through mountains of crap and ads to find a nugget of useful information anymore. Google actually has an interest to have moderately useful but not great results because the faster a user finds what they need, the fewer ad impressions they generate. This practice won't fly from now on.
Using Google feels like dumpster diving today, compared to the polite and helpful AI experience. Of course chat bots need search to fix hallucinations, but search won't be the entry point anymore.
Who owns the entry point owns the ads. In a few years we might be able to run local models, so nobody will be able to shove ads and spam in our faces. Stable Diffusion proved it can be done for images, we need to have the same for text.
The future will be like "my AI will be talking to your AI", using the internet without AI will be like going out without a mask during COVID. I don't see ads having a nice life under this regime.
sprucenoose t1_j5argqh wrote
I wish I could see another result, but I would be surprised if the masses didn't get pushed into adopting some proprietary personalized cloud-based AI platform that operates on a lower tier ad-based revenue model and a premium subscription model. Local AIs might be a thing but at least for open source ones, probably not the norm and will have disadvantages as well as advantages.
PoliteThaiBeep t1_j5dq131 wrote
>Nobody's going to wade through mountains of crap and ads to find a nugget of useful information anymore. Google actually has an interest to have moderately useful but not great results because the faster a user finds what they need, the fewer ad impressions they generate. This practice won't fly from now on.
If Google just sat on a poor search algorithm somebody would come up and overthrow them - duck duck go or about a million others. But they weren't able to do that. Why? Because nobody was able to come up with a better search engine so far.
And now when it's obvious that search engines are past and LLMs are a much better way to go Google is racing with everyone to it.
Everything else is just a wacky conspiracy theory without any substance to it, but invoking magic words "evil corporation" does have an effect regardless of the matter discussed.
Pathetic.
duffmanhb t1_j59qrr8 wrote
You're complaining about the search results. OpenAI isn't a challenge to their ad model. Getting better search results has nothing to do with ads. No one is clicking through ads looking for information. They are clicking through shitty search results that are SEO packed to the tits, making the whole slew of results be generic AI generated crap.
Google WANTS better search results, that meet the users needs, to drive traffic. OpenAI has massively cornered Google in certain information seeking type searches, which Google wants to tackle right away. Google's ads have absolutely no threat from better search results.
visarga t1_j59y628 wrote
When people choose to use a chat interface it means they won't actually search the web manually, they got AI to do it for them. So, who sees the ads? The language model completely replaces the search user interface.
duffmanhb t1_j59z0nd wrote
You're not thinking larger. Google searches aren't just things like, "What's the velocity speed required to break gravity?" or "What is the kwh rate in California for the last 10 years?"
People will still use Google, or some future permutation of it. Long as they are using Google, they are feeding them data, which they'll use to deliver ads (probably better than ever). It doesn't have to deliver those ads through Google.com, but in many other ways. They can still deliver your precise answer, but ender that, deliver products that are perfectly optimized to be exactly what you are looking for. If it's something you want to buy, or could potentially buy that you don't know you want yet... All this AI data Google will generate from you using their AI, will be able to deliver ads better than ever.
Say for instance you're a PERFECT candidate for solar panels on your roof. But it's nothing you ever even consider, never been educated on, haven't looked into, and just really aren't interested in it. Google will be able to use your AI searches to get such an intimate understanding of you, to realize, 'Visarga is an amazing cadidate for residential solar and they don't even know it. But they would absolutely love to get solar for their home if they knew more about it. The data shows they absolutely would be thrilled to have this. So we can now find a way to get them in contact with an installer so they can get solar."
That's MASSIVELY valuable for EVERYONE. The installer who wants to not spend time educating everyone, and seeking out ideal candidates, and the consumer who would be thrilled to get this, but has no idea about it. This is what Google already tries, and with the data AI models will be able to deliver, are going to optimize this beyond belief. Sure, you wont get your answer ad on a ChatGPT style interface, but that's probably not what the future of this AI integration is going to look like. It's not going to be some blank interface you're seeing now. It'll be integrated into other things.
StillBurningInside t1_j59txea wrote
When i ask my AI app on my phone, it will do the searching for me, give me the answer i want, and i'll never see an ad.
We don't need search engines anymore. Our AI's will do the heavy lifting. They will become the way we seek information and solve our problems. This was inevitable.
duffmanhb t1_j59yp0e wrote
People will use google to research and search things... Further, the search engine itself isn't where it needs to deliver ads. It's gathering data on you to figure out what you want and need in that moment, and if it's something to buy, they will use this data to optimally find exactly the most perfect product you are seeking. If anything this level of depth and AI will improve their ad delivery across the web.
You're acting like Google wont know how to adapt and instead just sit around complaining that their old model and way of doing things doesn't work.
Fmeson t1_j57jmv9 wrote
I suppose you doubt that they have interesting models to release, and not that they are willing to relax AI saftey rules, but google undoubtedly has interesting models. They have demonstrated their capacity in the past with things like AlphaGo, and they have insane amounts of computing resources, data, and brain power.
GPT3 is not notable because open AI has ML tech no one else has, but because the resources needed to train such a thing is beyond smaller labs. Google can undoubtedly manage it.
sartres_ t1_j57n0fl wrote
No, I doubt they'll reduce their "safety" restrictions. They have a lot of interesting experiments and they never release any of it. They never even use it. It's endemic to the culture, they've been doing it for years. Remember when they showed off AlphaZero, totally upended the chess AI world, refused to release any of it or use it again, and dropped the project?
We'll end up getting LaMDa and Imagen as a $10k corporate subscription that's somehow still more locked down than ChatGPT, and in a few years google execs will be scratching their heads when Microsoft owns the AI market.
Spire_Citron t1_j58xvfv wrote
Wait, they wouldn't even release a chess bot? Lame.
visarga t1_j59temu wrote
Current day chess bots surpassed that level long ago. Google made themselves irrelevant.
croto8 t1_j5818iu wrote
That’s nothing like they’re current operating model, and many of the shuttered projects were intentionally just PoCs and for PR.
sartres_ t1_j58hu38 wrote
They don't have a business model for stuff like this. While most of their products are free and consumer-oriented, Google does have an enterprise ecosystem, mainly Google Cloud. They're bad at it and losing to AWS/Azure but they do try. If they go consumer I can also see another Stadia-type disaster. The AI team does not like the general public and there's no way they'll go with a scheme like Docs or gmail.
croto8 t1_j58i6vp wrote
Waymo, virtual assistant that integrates with google calendar and gmail, improved/interactive google searches, and dynamic advertising are all more obvious implementations based on their track record.
sartres_ t1_j58k1nb wrote
Those sound like good ideas. The search integration, I think, is inevitable since Microsoft is doing it. But that's not what they're doing right now, they're doing things like "an application called Maya that visualizes three-dimensional shoes" and "tools to help other businesses create their own A.I. prototypes in internet browsers . . . . which will have two “Pro” versions." These are not using their advances to their potential. I could be wrong, but I see this going poorly.
Superschlenz t1_j58kwtr wrote
>The AI team does not like the general public
Maybe someone should tell the AI team that paid finetuners cost money.
Guess they already know that chatbots without massive RLHF can be toxic.
Seems that OpenAI has successfully utilized one million unpaid beta testers for the job.
Fmeson t1_j581u5o wrote
Chess AIs are cool, but just a tech demo. There is a reason why they were fine with Leela baeically open sourcing their approach without response. They don't make money.
Om the flip side, ChatGPT has widespread consumer appeal. It's a completely different thing.
TFenrir t1_j57vzlc wrote
Not only has Google managed it, they have most likely the best models in the world. PaLM is already the benchmark for basically all LLM tests, and it's even been fine tuned - for example medPaLM recently was shown in a paper that puts its diagnostic skills a hairsbreadth away from marching a clinician.
I think I just assume that everyone already... Knows this, at least in this sub, but Google is far and away the technical leader in this, not even when including DeepMind.
GoldenRain t1_j59lupa wrote
Should be mentioned that OpenAI using Google tech, without it they wouldnt exist.
visarga t1_j59trj8 wrote
Makes no difference who invented it, the inventors don't work at Google anymore.
visarga t1_j59tlpa wrote
> PaLM is already the benchmark for basically all LLM tests
I also made a time machine but nobody can see it. You got to trust me. My work is the benchmark in time travel, though.
TFenrir t1_j5a38bv wrote
Just because I don't physically have access to these models, doesn't mean they don't exist. Google regularly works with other institutions when running research with PaLM and their other advancements, and people frequently duplicate their findings.
Additionally, we have access to things like Flan-T5, tiny models fine tuned with their latest work that are about as powerful as gpt3, 5b vs 170b parameters.
visarga t1_j5luwtn wrote
I know Flan-T5, it is probably the best small model, but it only gets good scores for extractive and classification tasks, not for creative writing.
SkaldCrypto t1_j57m7qj wrote
Google being a pioneer in the space doesn't mean they kept up. More likely, they trying to frantically leverage their massive data sets and compute to create a new model.
This will be trivial but look at Microsoft. They bought a huge stake Openai then immediately laid off their internal ai team. With the exception of a few choice individuals, I assume Google is equally bloated.
TFenrir t1_j57v4lg wrote
Have you actually seen the models coming out of Google? Read their research papers? There is no question that they are not just pioneers, they literally set the benchmarks
visarga t1_j59tx2d wrote
Maybe their 'amazing' PaLM model has issues we don't know about. chatGPT was intensely and adversarially studied for a month and a half.
TFenrir t1_j59zier wrote
I don't think that's the case. Please read the papers, look into the actual research - it sounds like you are like... Mad at Google, but that's a separate consideration than the tech they have. It's unquestionably better than any other LLMs we know about, regardless of how you feel about Google
visarga t1_j5lv4bc wrote
The point I was making is that without direct access to the model we don't know. It's easy to hide the embarrassing things and only show the nice ones. Maybe the model does get lower perplexity, but it also has to be aligned properly, and OpenAI ain't so open about their alignment work, we can't be sure what is the gap now.
-ZeroRelevance- t1_j58czn7 wrote
Google are clearly the most capable group in the space right now, just look at any of the research coming out from them over the past year and it’s clear that they are dominating any of the other labs
monkorn t1_j5b0saa wrote
So were the brilliant engineers at Xerox PARC. So were the brilliant engineers at Kodak, at Bell Labs. Wozniak begged HP to let him work on computers and they said no.
Monopolies allow these companies to hire the smartest most brilliant people. They don't release products. The managers are to afraid that they will spoil their golden goose, and by the time they act, it's to late.
[deleted] t1_j580fwl wrote
>laid off their internal ai team.
I've seen no mention of this anywhere.
Fabulous_Exam_1787 t1_j594upl wrote
Google is by far the leader. They invented the transformer model that GPT is based on after all. Where they differ is that they always keep it to themselves and release papers but no code and. k access to anyone outside Google.
visarga t1_j59rhwa wrote
So, the supposition here is that Google's AI capabilities are superior. Let's see:
- OCR: worse than Amazon Textract
- voice (TTS): worse than Natural Reader
- translation: worse than DeepL
- YT recommendations: very mediocre and inflexible
- assistant: still as dumb as it was 10 years ago
- search: a crapshoot of spam and ads, with occasional nuggets of useful data
- language models: no demo, just samples, easy to fake or make seem more impressive than they really are
- image generation: same, no demo and no API, just cherry picked samples (they can keep their image generators, nobody needs them anymore)
- AI inference: GCP is inferior to Azure and AWS, and Azure has GPT-3
- speech recognition: here they do have excellent AI, but the open sourced Whisper is just as good or better (from OpenAI - one of the few models they did release)
- computational photography: yes, they are great at it
- ML frameworks: TensorFlow lost the war with PyTorch
By the way, the people who invented the transformer, they all left Google and have startups, except one. So they lost key innovators who didn't think Google was supporting them enough.
The problem with Google was not lack of capability - it was the fact that they were making too much money already on the current system. But what works today won't necessarily work tomorrow. They are like Microsoft 20 years ago, who lost web search, mobile and web browser markets because they were too successful at the moment.
Fabulous_Exam_1787 t1_j594ny0 wrote
Oh there’s no doubt that they have the software and models. It’s their culture of announcing them without allowing the public to touch it.
duffmanhb t1_j59rk9f wrote
Google's models are leaps and bounds beyond OpenAI
It's frustrating that they wont release it, but it's by and large BECAUSE it's so advanced. Google's AI is connected to the internet, so all of its information is up to date, dynamic, and constantly evolving. The very nature of connecting it to the web with constant streams of information pretty much inherently remove most safe guards and leave open tons of room for rapid growth and abuse that Google wont be able to stay ahead of against millions of people using it.
It's also potentially a general AI. It's not just ChatGPT style, but their AI is also connected to EVERYTHING you can imagine. Not just knowledge databases from 2020 and before... It's more closely resembling an actual mind like human's that have tons and tons of different "brains" all working together. You can work with maps, weather data, traffic, breaking news, art, internet of things, you name it. They connect everything in their AI
This is what Google has been working on the past year. It's entirely on improvement and guard rails. But it looks like Google has realized the cat's out of the bag, so they want to bring it to market sooner than later before everyone starts building businesses on the OpenAI framework instead of theirs.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments