"What's the Moat of your AI company?" That seems to be top of mind for founders pitching their novel idea to VCs -- and the most common question they get. But I think it might not be the right question. Right now, nobody seems to have a good answer. a16z doesn't. At the same time,
GPT-4 came out yesterday and overshadowed announcements, each of which would have been bombshell news otherwise: * Anthropic AI announcing their ChatGPT-like API -- likely the strongest competitor to OpenAI today (only waitlist) * Google announcing PaLM API (currently it's just marketing -- no public access yet) * Adept AI announcing their $350M round (they build foundation models to interact with
"Alpaca is just $100 and competitive with InstructGPT" -- takes like this are going around Twitter, adding to the (generally justified!) hype around AI models. It is indeed a very encouraging result. Specifically, that it took so little compute to train something that achieves competitive results on benchmarks and is a relatively small model at 7B parameters. I haven&
Matt Rickard has a concise overview of Chain-of-thought: the design pattern of having an LLM think step by step. To summarize, the four mentioned approaches from simpler to more nuanced are: 1. Add "Let's think step-by-step" to the prompt. 2. Produce multiple solutions, have the LLM self-check on each one, pick
I've been experimenting with embedding ideas into GPT-space, and using the resulting vectors to visualize. For example, you could plot different activities based on two axes: how safe they are, and how adrenaline-inducing they are. How does it work? The intuition is the following. In words, you can define an axis, e.g. "unsafe activity&
There is a massive AI overhang today. The term is analogous to snow overhang. When snow slides down a roof, sometimes a section goes over the edge and is seemingly supported by nothing. You know it will eventually fall; the tension is in the air. It's a question of time. I have the same feeling with applying AI
There's a now-famous classification of different levels of self-driving: * Level 0: No automation * Level 1: Driver assistance * Level 2: Partial automation * Level 3: Conditional automation (human fallback always available) * Level 4: High automation (can safely pull over) * Level 5: Full automation The full definition is more detailed but I won't replicate it here. Now
Probably 80% of (mainstream, non-ML) Twitter is excited about the potential of GPT and ChatGPT. The other 20% is skeptical. Few are indifferent. But both the optimists and pessimists seem to focus on the obvious set of use cases: text generation and chatbots. That is a failure of imagination. Text is just an interface to those models, and chat
I've built around 10 prototypes with GPT over the past couple weeks and it's surprisingly fun. Why is that? Obviously it's a shiny new toy. Whenever I discover a new tech capability, I get excited. I recall discovering D3.js, Bokeh, Keras... These appeal to the Technology enthusiast in me. But there's
I hacked a bit on an AI experiment: idea generator. In general, working on these AI apps makes you think a lot about the work process and unique value add of Knowledge workers in general, and myself specifically. How predictable is it? Which parts are easy to automate; which are easy to assist? How much Context -- and what exactly -- does
