zlacker

You're not really answering the question here.

Parent's point is that GPT-4 is better because they invested more money (was that ~$60M?) in training infrastructure, not because their core logic is more advanced.

I'm not arguing for one or the other, just restating parent's point.

>>Galanw+(OP)
Are you really saying Google can't spend $60m or much more to compete? Again if it is so easy as spending money on compute Amazon and Google would have just spent the money by now and Bard would be as good as Chat GPT, but for most things it is not even as good as Chat GPT 3.5.

>>andy_p+U2
You should already be aware of the secret sauce of ChatGPT by now: MoE + RLHF. Making MoE profitable is a different story. But, of course, that is not the only part. OpenAI does very obvious things to make GPT-4 and GPT-4 Turbo better than other models, and this is hidden in the training data. Some of these obvious things have already been discovered, but some of them we just can't see yet. However, if you see how close Phind V7 34B is to the quality of GPT-4, you'll understand that the gap is not wide enough to eliminate the competition.

>>pk-pro+s4
If they’re ”obvious”, e.g. ”easy to see”, how come, as you say, we ”can’t see” them yet?

Can not see ≠ easy to see

>>Cyberf+Bd
That is the point we often overlook the obvious stuff. It is something so simple and trivial that nobody sees it as a vital part. It is something along the lines of "Textbooks are all you need."

>>pk-pro+s4
This is very much true. Competitive moats can be built on surprisingly small edges. I've built a tiny empire on top of a bug.