From the article:

That Google memo about having “no moat” in AI was real — and Google’s AI boss disagrees with it

Just a couple of months ago, a leaked memo said to be from a Google researcher cast doubt on the company’s future in AI, stating that it has “no moat” in the industry — and now, we seemingly have confirmation that it was real. In an interview with Decoder, Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google’s DeepMind, told The Verge that although he believes the memo was legitimate, he disagrees with its conclusions.

“I think that memo was real. I think engineers at Google often write various documents, and sometimes they get leaked and go viral,” Hassabis said. “I think it’s interesting to listen to them, and then you’ve got to chart your own course. And I haven’t read that specific memo in detail, but I disagree with the conclusions from that.”

The memo, which was obtained by SemiAnalysis from a public Discord server, says that neither Google nor OpenAI have what they need to succeed in the AI industry. Instead, the researcher claims “a third faction has been quietly eating our lunch”: open-source AI models that the researcher says are “faster, more customizable, more private, and pound-for-pound more capable.”

But Hassabis is less pessimistic about Google’s future in the AI industry. He believes that the competitive nature of the company’s researchers will help push Google to the forefront of AI, adding that the newly merged Google Brain and Google DeepMind teams, which Hassabis was asked to lead, will likely result in more breakthroughs.

“Look at the history of what Google and DeepMind have done in terms of coming up with new innovations and breakthroughs,” Hassabis said. “I would bet on us, and I’m certainly very confident that that will continue and actually be even more true over the next decade in terms of us producing the next key breakthroughs just like we did in the past.”

  • martinb@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Given the pace of oss optimisation, I fully expect the requirements for a gpt3.5 equivalent performance model to be much lower in the coming year. The biggest issues are around training or fine tuning right now. Inference is cheaper, resource wise. For truly large models, the moat is most definitely gpu compute and power constraints. Those who own their own gpu farms will be at an advantage until there is significant increase in cloud gpu capacity - right now, cloud gpu is at a premium, and can also include wait time for access. I don’t expect this to change in the next year or two.

    Tl;dr; moat is real, but it’s gpu and power constraints.

    • jray4559@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hope to god you are right. What will truly be a revolution is if somehow these models can be transitioned to CPU-bound rather than GPU without completely tanking performance. Then we can start talking about running it on phones and laptops.

      But I don’t know how much more you can squeeze out of the LLM stone. I’m surprised that we got what was essentially a brute-forcing of concepts, with massive catalogs of data, rather than one more hand-crafted/built from scratch. Maybe there is another way to go about? God I hope so, so OSS can use it before the big guys convince governments to drop the hammer.

      • martinb@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can see most individuals and SMBs going with specialist “good enough” models which they can run on prem/ locally, leaving the truly huge systems to those with compute to spare. The security model for these MAAS systems is pretty much “trust me bro”. A lot of companies will not want to, or be able to, trust such a system. PI/CID can not be left in the hands of the ai as a service company. They will have to either go on prem, or stand up their own models in their private cloud. Again, this limits model size for orgs, available compute etc. This points to using available models, optimised, etc. OSS FTW (I hope)