"OpenAI’s is called GPT-4, the fourth LLM the company has developed since its 2015 founding." - that sentence doesn't fill me with confidence in the quality of the rest of the article, sadly.
No, I'm complaining that just because GPT-4 is called GPT-4 doesn't mean it's the fourth LLM from OpenAI.
Off the top of my head: GPT-2, Codex, GPT-3 in three different flavors (babbage, curie, davinci), GPT-3.5.
Suggesting that GPT-4 was "fourth" simply isn't credible.
Just the other day they announced a jump from o1 to o3, skipping o2 purely because it's already the name of a major telecommunications brand in Europe. Deriving anything from the names of OpenAI's products doesn't make sense.
While I’m sure it’s unintentional, that amounts to nitpicking. I can easily find three to include and pass over the rest. Face value turns out to be a decent approximation.
The thing is that I think it could be an optimal way of saying it. Should we not put it into context of making a particular LLM? Why count three versions of three LLMs? They made it hard to choose the one that makes up for not having GPT 1. GPT 3.5 and Codex are both good candidates. And of course calling GPT 4 the third and fifth could be considered as well.
That doesn’t resolve the problem of whether third or fifth is better than fourth. I have yet to be convinced that their wording here shows that they fail to grasp the pace of the development.
If we're generous the article considers versions that were significant improvements. 4o is hardly better on real-world usage (benchmarks are gamed to death) than the original 4.
Technically…? Does anyone here believe that the EU and Europe is the same thing? Would you find it weird if someone said that a Norwegian company was in Europe?
Parent is suggesting it would be weird for Europeans to call the UK as in Europe which as a European I can tell you is preposterous. That’s the kind of non sense you used to hear from Brexiter. They will have no sympathy from me.
The UK is part of Europe. It's technically, geographically, politically, historically, lingustially, tectonically and socially correct. In what ways is it not?
Are Cuba or Haiti part of North America? A lot of British people feel like their civilization is meaningfully distinct from “Europe”, even though they’re part of it in a technical geographical sense.
In general yes, but it depends on if you consider central america as its own continent and if you include them there and how you delineate north/south america. Groupings differ based on your education.
I think the thing that makes the UK different is that there is no other option besides them being a separate thing/continent. Are you suggesting that the UK is it's own continent? Would that be with the faroese and the Greenlanders?
The UK might feel different, but they are not separate. The french feel different from the bulgarians, but that does not mean they are on a separate continent, politically or geographically.
EDIT:
> A lot of British people feel like their civilization is meaningfully distinct
This is, to borrow a word, "balderdash". Looking at the influence vikings, romans and normans have had that is a rubbish argument. Just like other countries in europe the british culture is built on the stones of other cultures, and just like many other countries they subsumed other cultures because of kings or other political dominance.
But I'm guessing we can agree that any major landmass is generally belonging to a continent? Like we all agree that greenland, new zealand, japan, etc generally belong to a continent?
So to what continent do those british people think they belong?
New Zealand is not part of a continent (unless you consider Zealandia [1] one, which few do). It's a bunch of islands in the middle of the sea, far from other land. It is part of named regions which sometimes substitute for continents when people want to divide up the world for some purpose like sports or economics, including Oceania and Australasia.
Great Britain (the island) is very close to mainland Europe, and was directly part of it a few thousand years ago. The situation is totally different.
That's pretty much the definition of continent, right? The term continent is not scientifically based unless you want to argue that there are 16-ish continents and that South Georgia is it's own continent (and even tectonically its arbitrary since what we consider to be major, minor, micro are arbitrary).
If you asked someone directly “what continent is Britain part of”, they would surely say Europe, even if they would be unlikely to describe themselves as European. Language is funny that way.
I specifically asked what "those british people" think in response to a post saying "If British people don’t feel like they’re part of “the Continent”".
I was clearly asking what those specific british people think.
The point was that any closeby landmass besides europe is either in europe or in north america, and I have a hard time seeing the argument for UK being in North America or America at all.
The issue isn't the grammar. It is that there are 5 distinct LLMs from OpenAI that you can use right now as well as 4 others that were deprecated in 2024.
The article definitely has issues, but to me what's relevant is where it's published. The smart money and experts without a vested interest have been well aware LLMs are an expensive dead for over a year and have been saying as much (Gary Marcus for instance). That this is starting to enter mainstream consciousness is what's newsworthy.
By whom? He seems highly credible to me, and his credentials check out, especially compared to hype men like Sam Altman. All youre doing is spreading FUD by an unnamed "they"
He only criticizes ai capabilities, without creating anything himself. Credentials are effectively meaningless. With every new release, he clamors for attention to prove how right he was—and always will be. That’s precisely why he lacks credibility.
He started and then sold a machine learning startup to Uber. He's also written multiple books about the construction of the human mind and he has a PhD from MIT. I would hardly call that creating nothing. He's not clamoring for attention, he's asking that AI be regulated and pointing out a lot of the glaring issues with the field.
> At best, they say, Orion performs better than OpenAI’s current offerings, but hasn’t advanced enough to justify the enormous cost of keeping the new model running.
If you offer an API you need to dedicate servers to it that keep the model loaded in GPU memory. Unless you don't care about latency at all.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if the bigger reason is the PR cost of releasing with an exciting name but unexciting results. The press would immediately declare the end of the AI growth curve
There definitely is, storage, machines at the ready, data centers, etc. Also OpenAI basically loses money every time you interact with ChatGPT https://www.wheresyoured.at/subprimeai/
I've been messing around with base (not instruction tuned) LLMs; they often evade AI detectors and I wouldn't be surprised if they evade this kind of detection too, at least with a high temperature
Well, here's the interesting part - gpt2 has been writing news since well before gpt3 was launched. Remember when "news" started getting weirdly reptative? When just about any product had a review avaliable? When the amount of slop content just _exploded_? Thats when the ai colonization of the internet began.
