[refulgentis]

No.

That'd be a good explanation, but it's theoretical.

In practice:

A) there was no meaningful internal LLM API pre-ChatGPT. All this AI stuff was under lock and key until Nov 2022, then it was an emergency.

B) the bits we're discussing are OpenAI-specific concepts that could only have occurred after OpenAI's.

The API includes chat messages organized with roles, an OpenAI concept, and "tools", an OpenAI concept, both of which came well after the GPT API.

Initial API announcement here: https://developers.googleblog.com/en/palm-api-makersuite-an-...

[Jensson]

Google started including LLM features in internal products 2019 at least, I knew since I worked there then. I can't remember exactly when they started having LLM generated snippets and suggestions everywhere but it was there at least since 2019. So they have had internal APIs for this for quite some time.

> All this AI stuff was under lock and key until Nov 2022

That is all wrong... Did you work there? What do you base this on? Google has been experimenting with LLMs internally ever since the original paper, I worked in search then and I remember my senior manager said this was the biggest revolution in natural language processing since ever.

So even if Google added a few concepts from OpenAI, or renamed them, they still have had plenty of experience working with LLM APIs internally and that would make them want different things in their public API as well.

[refulgentis]

> LLM generated snippets and suggestions everywhere but it was there at least since 2019

Absolutely not. Note that ex. Google's AI answers are not from an LLM and they're very proud of that.

> So they have had internal APIs for this for quite some time.

We did not have internal or external APIs for "chat completions" with chat messages, roles, and JSON schemas until after OpenAI.

> Did you work there?

Yes

> What do you base this on?

The fact it was under lock and key. You had to jump through several layers of approvals to even get access to a standard text-completion GUI, never mind API.

> has been experimenting with LLMs internally ever since the original paper,

What's "the original paper"? Are you calling BERT an LLM? Do you think transformers implied "chat completions"?

> that would make them want different things in their public API as well.

It's a nice theoretical argument.

If you're still convinced Google had a conversational LLM API before OpenAI, or that we need to quibble everything because I might be implying Google didn't invent transformers, there's a much more damning thing:

The API is Gemini-specific and released with Gemini, ~December 2023. There's no reason for it to be so different other than NIH and proto-based thinking. It's not great. That's why ex. we see the other comment where Cloud built out a whole other API and framework that can be used with OpenAI's Python library.

[DannyBee]

>All this AI stuff was under lock and key until Nov 2022, then it was an emergency.

This is absolutely false, as the other person said. As one example: We had already built and were using AI based code completion in production by then.

Here's a public blog post from July, 2022: https://research.google/blog/ml-enhanced-code-completion-imp...

This is just one easy publicly verifiable example, there are others. (We actually were doing it before copilot, etc)

[refulgentis]

Pretending that was an LLM as it is understood today, and that whatever internal API was available for internal use cases is actually the same as the public API for Gemini today, and that it was the same as an API for adding a "chat completion" to a "conversation" with messages, roles, and JSON schemas is silly.

[DannyBee]

I'm glad you know exactly what happened, what it was capable of, etc, despite not working on it, and not asking a single question of those who did!

This follows right in line with the rest of your approach.

If you want to know things, it works better to ask questions than make assertions about what other people did or didn't do.

Nobody really cares about the opinions of those who can't be bothered to learn.