| I haven't listen to your great podcasts so hard to say what is not covered. Architectures matter a lot less than data. "Knowledge" and "reasoning" in LLMs is a manifestation of instruct-style data. It won't matter how much cheaper training gets if there is limited instruct data for use cases. How do you make 100k context window data for example? Still need thousands of people. Same with so-called niches. Maybe it turns out to be a complex coordination problem to share the data. That's bad for equity investors and giant companies. Anyway, all of this would cost less than the moon landing so it's practicable, you don't need cheaper, you just need risk-taking. The obviousness of the path from here to there means it's not about innovation. It's all about strategy. If Google could marshal $10b for Stadia it could spend $10b on generating 100k context window instruct style data and have the best model. It could also synthesize videos from Unity/Unreal for Sora-style generation. It would just be very hard in an org with 100,000+ people to spend $10b on 10 developers and 10,000 writers compared to 400 developers and 3,600 product managers and other egos. At the end of the day you are revisiting the weaknesses that brought Google and other big companies to this mess in the first place. Anyway I personally think the biggest weakness with ChatGPT and the chat-style UX is that it feels like work. Netflix, TikTok, etc. don't feel like work. Nobody at Google (or OpenAI for that matter) knows how to make stuff that doesn't feel like work. And you can't measure "fun." So the biggest thing to figure out is how much technical stuff matters in a world where people can be poached here and there and walk out with the whole architecture in their heads, versus the non-technical stuff that takes decades of hard-worn personal experiences and strongly held opinions like answers to questions "How do you make AI fun?" |
Bring back text-based adventure games.