> I am still under development, and I am not as chatty as ChatGPT or Bing Chat because I have not been trained on as much data. I am also not as good at understanding and responding to complex questions. However, I am learning and improving every day, and I will become more chatty over time.
My understanding is that producing shorter responses proportionally reduces the amount of computing—and thus the cost—required to produce it.
It's been weird. They started out a head-neck-and-torso above everyone else in competence. Interviews were neigh impossible, and it was a hyper-elite team and a dream work environment.
Then they screwed up, and hired a fifth of a million people.
Then they’ll use those to train its final model.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-faste...
At this exact moment, ChatGPT is giving me about a word every 2-3 seconds. It's basically useless. But even when the system is not overloaded, there's a noticeable delay.
How much quality would you be willing to trade off to get results instantly instead? Or the inverse, how much better would the results need to be to justify a 5x longer processing time? It seems hard to believe that ChatGPT happened to be released at exactly the optimal tradeoff. (And obviously it's also unlikely that Google launched with exactly the right tradeoff.)
[0]: https://generativereview.substack.com/p/the-generative-revie...
"We’re releasing it initially with our lightweight model version of LaMDA. This much smaller model requires significantly less computing power, enabling us to scale to more users, allowing for more feedback"
They are richer than Croesus, that is no reason for them to hold back and get stomped on because they field an inferior product. Like, being backed by an immensely profitable corporation should be an advantage for them, but now it looks like they are so afraid of eroding those profits that they are hampered instead.