|
|
|
|
|
|
by swyx
1208 days ago
|
|
|
congrats on launching! 1) how do you evaluate the opportunity here vs previous players like Humanloop (seems to have pivoted to weak labeling) and Dust.tt (unclear traction)? and 2) it seems with OpenAI being so far ahead of everyone else (https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/latest/?group=core_scenarios) I think the "model interoperability" is a key assumption that needs to be tested. Nobody's talking about "model interoperability" between dalle, midjourney, or stable diffusion - they each have their strengths, and that's that. prompts aren't code that can be shipped indiscriminately everywhere, they only exist within the context of the model they are run against |
|
|
1) We believe that timing is a critical piece of this opportunity. With the recent media buzz around ChatGPT, we have found that leadership in companies large and small are actively considering how to best make use of LLMs in their business. The problems we've identified emerged as clear patterns across hundreds of calls with companies that are either currently managing LLM-powered features in production, or aspiring to. The level of interest was much smaller just 6 months ago, has grown quickly, and we anticipate it to grow only more in the near future.
2) We agree that with OpenAI's current dominance in the space, being provider-agnostic is not top of mind for most at the moment. We are betting that this will become increasingly important as the space evolves. We are already seeing Google investing hundreds of millions in Anthropic (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-03/google-in...), Google working on their own LLMs (e.g. BARD), and Facebook launching their own LLM (https://ai.facebook.com/blog/large-language-model-llama-meta...). We expect this to become an increasingly competitive space and hope to provide companies with the tools needed to effectively evaluate their options.