And none of the major model makers (not counting SpaceX) have IPO'd yet

dragonwriter 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pretty sure Google fits any definition of major model maker that SpaceX does, and had their IPO long before SpaceX.

Meta and Microsoft both are also significant makers of GenAI models that are public, though neither has a big tentpole LLM line that they sell access.to commercially like OpenAI, Anthropic. Google, SpaceX, which I infer might be what you mean by major model maker.

	▲	KerrAvon an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Meta had Llama, which set a lot of things on fire in a good way, and then disappeared from the scene as tech advanced. What does Microsoft have? Not sure SpaceX counts. Nobody sane uses Grok. It's untrustable due to reality-distorting political bias training, and it's strongly associated with CSAM production. Not what you want in a reliable corporate utility.

▲

xnx 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google (and to a much lesser degree, Facebook)

	▲	Ancalagon 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Google's "IPO" is an extra raising round Is Meta even in this race anymore?

▲

Maxatar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is Gemini really that unpopular?

	▲	Avicebron 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you don't count the autosummary/gen answer at the top of googling an answer I would say so. Outside of the more technically inclined crowd I think the sentiment is if you aren't at the forefront (opus/fable/chatgpt) then your last or at least indistinguishable from all the rest of the lesser models. If you're selling deterministic output, just use traditional code. If you product is inference, it has to be the best inference. This becomes more apparent when you bounce between powerful models and smaller cheaper ones, the cheaper ones _feel_ worse to use.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]