Historically, I'm a backend and distributed systems engineer, but integrating GPT4 into my workflows has unlocked an awe-inspiring ability to lay down fat beads of UI-heavy code in both professional and personal contexts.
But it's still an L3: gotta ask the right questions and doubt every line it produces until it compiles and the tests pass.
Did you happen to mean overestimates? Just trying to make sure I understand.
For example, GPT-4 produces Javascript code far better than it produces Clojure code. Often, when it comes to Clojure, GPT-4 produces broken examples, contradictory explanations, or even circular reasoning.
They have no moat other than training data and computing power - over the long term, while they may become a huge company, Apple will keep making M chip computers.
And up to today they probably had one of the best fundraising prospects of any private company in the world.
Board probably took a look at updated burn-rate projections, saw that they have 6 months of runway, saw that they don't have enough GPUs, saw that Llama and Mistral and whatever other open-source models are awesome and run on personal computers, and thought to themselves - why the hell are we spending so much God damn money? For $20 a month memberships? For bots to be able to auto-signup for accounts, not prepay, burn compute, and skip the bill?
Then Grok gets released on Twitter, and they are left wondering - what exactly is it that we do, that is so much better, that we are spending 100x of what cheapo Musk is?