|
| ▲ | dotancohen 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Most cutting edge technologies through history did not have near-peer widely-deployed open competitors. This technology does. |
|
| ▲ | tweetle_beetle 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The sole purpose of a press release is to generate positive interest. It is not entitled for the reader to expect the time they have invested in reading it to be worthwhile. |
| |
| ▲ | estearum 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Press release announcing a new car: > erhmygord I can't even buy this car right this second for nearly nothing and use it to drive a thousand miles per hour through a kindergarten parking lot?!?! | | |
| ▲ | aleqs 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you mean that this press release amounts to the AI equivalent of the latest Tesla Roadster 'release'... then I guess you're kinda right |
| |
| ▲ | travisgriggs 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This. And I wish I had thought to grab that nick years ago… When tweetles battle beetles… AND… |
|
|
| ▲ | seanhunter 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s not an exciting advancement if it’s just the AI equivalent of google wave. It’s totally reasonable to be skeptical of marketing and want to try something for yourself. |
| |
| ▲ | adamrezich 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Absolutely no need to slander Google Wave like that. | | | |
| ▲ | jcelerier 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | .. what was wrong with google wave? I kinda miss it | |
| ▲ | estearum 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fake hacker thinking Google Wave wasn't released to the public lol | | |
| ▲ | seanhunter 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Google wave was eventually released to the public but initially it required an invitation. So if you had a friend at google you could get in but if not you were out of luck. This killed early momentum and when they eventually opened up the product was dead on arrival. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kouteiheika 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > But to be unable to get excited by advancements we can't immediately use is... quite entitled. Well, I didn't go knocking on Google's door asking them to give me access to their fancy models. It's them who came up to us saying "hey, look at the amazing model we have here; too bad we won't tell you anything about how it works nor even let you access it". Entitled you say? Then maybe don't dangle a carrot right before my face, and then complain that I would like to eat it? |
| |
| ▲ | estearum 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Then don't click on the link homie "Don't talk publicly about things I personally cannot use right now" is peak entitlement, yes. | | |
| ▲ | kouteiheika 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > "Don't talk publicly about things I personally cannot use right now" is peak entitlement, yes. I never said anything like this? My point wasn't that "I can't use it, therefore it's bad"; my point was that as-is there's pretty much nothing exciting about this. Just because this exists inside Google doesn't really mean or do anything; it doesn't meaningfully advance the state-of-art precisely because nothing about this is public. Do you remember Sora[1]? Announced in pretty much exactly the same way -- grandiose webpage with fancy demos, zero technical details, limited availability and then... remind me what happened? Oh, right, they completely shut it down, and in the end it didn't "advance" squat. Might as well just never existed. So remind me why exactly I should be excited about this one here...? [1] -- https://openai.com/index/sora/ |
|
|
|
| ▲ | aleqs 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In order to claim there is any 'advancement' here requires a baseline of openness which is not met here. |
|
| ▲ | visarga 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > is just profoundly goofy shit Why not expect it? It's what most model releases do. |
