Saying it’s over is like saying that the internet is over after the dotcom bubble burst.
Nah. This is a revolutionizing foundational tech. Bigger than the internet even IMO. More like computerization of business, or the steam engine.
Anyone who did data work in big, boring enterprises knows the staggering amount of dark, unstructured data they have. Free-form text input, chat/phone conversations, but also plain old documents (pdf scans, PowerPoint files, anything).
Have a LLM interpret what is there and you turn this unstructured mess into data with a clear schema that can go into a relational database for further processing or summarization.
LLMs are groundbreaking for this kind of automated data structuring. And many use cases don't need perfect accuracy; detecting trends or summarizing at a high level is good enough for inputs to downstream process mining tasks.
Hopefully more and more tinkerers are going to fuel this fire even further, making it possible to run AI on-device with custom native chips.
That said, while it scores high, it's not as "generally" competent on most issues as GPT is, however, it's an exponentially smaller model and for that it does, it's really impressive.
Like most things, if you steer clear of all the hype there is a golden core of utility to be found. It sure is not just a party truck as the article daringly claims/questions it to be. The ones that make clever use of the foundational tool will stand to reap the benefits. Just like the ones that benefited from the spread of the internet.
To have real LLM comparison we would need access to pure chatgpt model's input/outputs. I wouldn't be surprised if certain open source LLMs like falcon-40b-instruct or llama2 have already surpassed chatgpt 3.5 models in quality.
But as far as I know no one so far has taken a bunch of open source models and wrapped them in a service like chatgpt 4. Why? Because the main cost of running such service using open source code (assuming the service would be open source too) would be the cost of renting hardware. Consequently the barrier to entry for competition would be very low so no one would sink their life savings in a company like that.
However, once it becomes possible to run multiple models like falcon-40B and llama2 (without quantization to 4bits) on a typical "high end pc" that will change. We will see open source projects that want to achieve a "chatgpt service" offline on consumer hardware. Why only then? Same reason why Linux was written once 386PC's became available. Could someone like Linus Torvalds write Linux 20 years before on their "university" or "company" computer? Sure, but except certain exceptions (gnu) most people engage in writing open source software they themselves want to run on their own hardware.
Big companies know this and they know very well such developments will out compete them shortly (like Linux out competed unix) so they are already doing all they can to stop or slow it down. By talking about "the dangers of AI", by not releasing powerfull ai accelerators on the market (google's tpu). And so on. But it will happen. Give it 10 years. I
Look at what GPT-4 can achieve from only receiving text and a primitive form of image training.
There is no unlimited growth, and after the low hanging fruits each step in progress will be exponentially harder.
Most data has not been incorporated into a model yet. Most data is not in text format. We don't know what is possible once that changes.
I hang around a lot of solopreneurs and there is a serious cohort of founders/hustlers who are using AI tools to greatly improve their productivity.
Not sure how much of that can carry forth to a major corporation though.
Oh is it? Maybe you can tell us then how you'd get the models home without the internet? On a DVD? Or interact with a server that runs the model for you? Or how we'd even be having this discussion?
People said similar delusions about Second Life back in the day.
I don't actually agree with the point you're contesting with but your reasoning here is flawed. Also - you might want to check your tone for future posts. It's slighty combative.
How would you express your angle regarding the contested point?
That implies that nothing can be more important than all of the things that were neccesary for it to come to pass. And there are a huge number of neccesary preconditions for most things. Your definition would result in a very counterintuitive definition of importance.
GitHub copilot and sit.ilar will become defacto standard.
Image generation is already here.
School systems already have to act on this due to pupil using it for essays etc.
AI literally creates a new ara for us: it's the first time we structure or learn on data to have a knowledge agent.