Skip to main content

Leaked Google Letter, Open Source the Threat or Opportunity?



 It's difficult to keep up with AI news. And recent news suggests that it's also difficult for the software giants to keep up with Open Source AI models. On May 4th Semi Analysis leaked an internal letter from within Google, seemingly from a software engineer that reveals a number of significant issues that the Open Source community present to both Google and Open AI.

Below are some of the revelations in the letter:

'the uncomfortable truth is, we aren’t positioned to win this arms race and neither is OpenAI. While we’ve been squabbling, a third faction has been quietly eating our lunch.

I’m talking, of course, about open source. Plainly put, they are lapping us. Things we consider “major open problems” are solved and in people’s hands today.'

'Open-source models are faster, more customizable, more private, and pound-for-pound more capable. They are doing things with $100 and 13B params that we struggle with at $10M and 540B. And they are doing so in weeks, not months. This has profound implications for us:

  • We have no secret sauce. Our best hope is to learn from and collaborate with what others are doing outside Google. We should prioritize enabling 3P integrations.
  • People will not pay for a restricted model when free, unrestricted alternatives are comparable in quality. We should consider where our value add really is.
  • Giant models are slowing us down. In the long run, the best models are the ones which can be iterated upon quickly. We should make small variants more than an afterthought, now that we know what is possible in the <20B parameter regime.
The whole letter is fascinating and poses many questions. Legislation for AI usage, by government is useless if it just imagines that it is the tech giants that can be legislated against. Legislation about safeguards or bias or some such has been made redundant. Innovation is out of the hands of the giants. And they know it.  

What the Semi Analysis article demonstrates so well is the pace of Open Source development. What costs the giants millions and many months to do, is done in days and for little outlay by the collective. Some of which I've managed to catch and commented on in this blog. This all reemphasises, to me, that Bard's response to the UK Governments white paper on AI being: too slow, too bureaucratic, too focused on compliance, may be true of Big Tech too. 



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Whispers in the Machine: Why Prompt Injection Remains a Persistent Threat to LLMs

 Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming how we interact with technology, offering incredible potential for tasks ranging from content creation to complex analysis. However, as these powerful tools become more integrated into our lives, so too do the novel security challenges they present. Among these, prompt injection attacks stand out as a particularly persistent and evolving threat. These attacks, as one recent paper (Safety at Scale: A Comprehensive Survey of Large Model Safety https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05206) highlights, involve subtly manipulating LLMs to deviate from their intended purpose, and the methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated. At its core, a prompt injection attack involves embedding a malicious instruction within an otherwise normal request, tricking the LLM into producing unintended – and potentially harmful – outputs. Think of it as slipping a secret, contradictory instruction into a seemingly harmless conversation. What makes prompt inj...
Post a Comment
Read more

Can We Build a Safe Superintelligence? Safe Superintelligence Inc. Raises Intriguing Questions

  Safe Superintelligence Inc . (SSI) has burst onto the scene with a bold mission: to create the world's first safe superintelligence (SSI). Their (Ilya Sutskever, Daniel Gross, Daniel Levy) ambition is undeniable, but before we all sign up to join their "cracked team," let's delve deeper into the potential issues with their approach. One of the most critical questions is defining "safe" superintelligence. What values would guide this powerful AI? How can we ensure it aligns with the complex and often contradictory desires of humanity?  After all, "safe" for one person might mean environmental protection, while another might prioritise economic growth, even if it harms the environment.  Finding universal values that a superintelligence could adhere to is a significant hurdle that SSI hasn't fully addressed. Another potential pitfall lies in SSI's desire to rapidly advance capabilities while prioritising safety.  Imagine a Formula One car wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Hidden Environmental Cost of AI: Data Centres' Surging Energy and Water Consumption

 In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of our daily lives, powering everything from smart assistants to complex data analysis. However, as AI technologies continue to advance and proliferate, a concerning trend has emerged: the rapidly increasing energy and water consumption of data centres that support these systems. The Power Hunger of AI According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global data centre electricity demand is projected to more than double between 2022 and 2026, largely due to the growth of AI. In 2022, data centres consumed approximately 460 terawatt-hours (TWh) globally, and this figure is expected to exceed 1,000 TWh by 2026. To put this into perspective, that's equivalent to the entire electricity consumption of Japan. The energy intensity of AI-related queries is particularly striking. While a typical Google search uses about 0.3 watt-hours (Wh), a query using ChatGPT requires around 2.9 Wh - nearly ten times more en...
Post a Comment
Read more