Degrading your product by filling it with ads or, God forbid, by making the LLM returns less accurate and influenced by advertisers, makes ZERO sense for any LLM company due to the ubiquity of LLMs. LLMs aren't something special that no one else can create and use. Google is a poor example because it had a monopoly on search for a long time due to its foothold and technology, but OpenAI has nothing like that at all. OpenAI has no moat or "secret sauce" that would enable it to be more successful than any other LLM company.

If I can use an open source highly effective LLM locally, and have it do all of the things ChatGPT can do (and more), then what motivation do I have to use ChatGPT? The only motivation people would have is ease of use but if one service becomes bogged down and compromised then people will just shift to one of the other hundred equally effective services with less ads. LLMs aren't hard to spin up and put out there for people to use.

Honestly, I don't think OpenAI is going to survive very long unless they get incredibly lucky or they come out with some banger of a new model or new app but even then, IDK...

> If I can use an open source highly effective LLM locally, and have it do all of the things ChatGPT can do

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle!

We are miles off from open models having parity with what the AI labs are putting out.

And that's putting aside the compute requirements to run the top open models and the poor economics of running these models locally.

Not all prompts require the same compute, and Gemma-4B runs on our phones with parity output for ordinary 1-5 sentence queries. The common use case of Google-style queries is already solved locally, saying we're miles off is ridiculous.

It's not "miles off", the gaps are narrowing instead of widening and they are already more than enough for the majority of use cases.

Getting people to install a different chatgpt app on their phones is a lot easier than getting them to change their search engine.

Google did just fine with the same strategy on search.

Cool website. I don't understand enough about the various benchmarks or how they're done to judge whether or not anything is accurate, but I love the layout and features especially the spectator feature which is pretty cool. One thing, I saw the "Market simulator" spectator feature but didn't see a corresponding benchmark for that. Is it "Finance" or "Betting" or "Trading"?

Thanks -- that one is categorized under Trading/Financial, whereas betting is reserved for games like Pot Limit Omaha Hilo.

That's a good idea for a feature request, including the tags for the spectatable demo games.

One reason, beside basic altruism, is so you can put the projects on your resume. This is especially helpful if the project does very well or gets lots of stars.

"the obligations of those without Capital is to write laws that demand the benefits of Capital be shared with all."

How do you propose they do that exactly?

I think he means the jobs that haven't yet been automated: plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, pipe fitters, dry wall layers, etc.

Not really a bold claim. The scientific consensus is that intelligence is a highly polygenic and heritable trait, with genetic factors accounting for 50%-80% of the variations in intelligence. The rest is environmental (prenatal care, education, nutrition, lack of exposure to toxins like lead, etc.)

Late to this, sorry for the necro-post, but this is not at all a consensus. The 50-80% number comes from twin studies from the 1990s and predates within-family and GXE, both of which knocked the estimates sharply back. "Highly polygenic" is probably doing the opposite of the work you're hoping it does. And, of course, "heritability" doesn't mean "genetically determined"; my propensity to wear lipstick (nil) is technically highly heritable, while my number of hands is barely heritable at all.

I think that writers may stop using "It's not x, it's y" analogies in their writings because every time they do, someone calls it out for being AI. Same with "Em Dashes" and such.

Total GDP increasing isn't a good measure of economic growth or productivity because it doesn't distinguish between productive value creation and money just changing hands. If I cut your hair and charge $50 and you cut my hair and charge $50 then $100 is added to the GDP. Sure, value is created by the transaction, but value would be created if no money changed hands at all thus not even affecting the GDP! GDP can also rise even as most people are doing poorly. A billionaire buying a superyacht adds the same amount to the GDP as 500 families buying their first home. You can have a growing GDP even in a society where the top .1% have 99% of the wealth, but that's not a society I'd want to live in.

I read the whole thing; it's definitely not AI slop. A few sentences taken out of an hour long read that are commonly used by AI doesn't mean the article was composed by AI. You'll find similar artifacts in any longer published work, including those published prior to AI.

I don't think [1] is 100% accurate.

What part of it isn't accurate? They're the top commenter and said exactly what I stated