Interesting Axios story illustrates just how much Silicon Valley has shifted its interest and investment into Generative AI startups like OpenAI and Midjourney away from metaverse platforms and related technology:
According to PitchBook data compiled by Axios Media Deals' Tim Baysinger, through March 16, 2022, companies that played in the metaverse or web3 space had raised nearly $2 billion in funding.
So far this year, metaverse and web3 companies have raised $586.7 million, a bit more than a quarter of last year's total. The totals for generative AI companies are the inverse: Through March 16, 2022, the generative AI space saw $612.8 million in funding. This year, it's up to $2.3 billion.
Driving the news: In a note Tuesday announcing Meta would lay off 10,000 more employees, Zuckerberg spotlighted AI work and reduced the metaverse to an "also." “Our single largest investment is in advancing AI and building it into every one of our products,” Zuckerberg wrote. “Our leading work building the metaverse and shaping the next generation of computing platforms also remains central to defining the future of social connection.”
As I've explained before, conflating web3 with the Metaverse is a huge mistake, as is assuming Meta leads the metaverse industry. That aside, it's clearly the case that the Valley has shifted its buzz toward generative AI.
Is that smart? Obviously I'm biased when I say this, but there's already 520 million+ active users across many metaverse platforms, while the Metaverse's addressable market is at minimum everyone who regularly enjoys muti-user immersive experiences (i.e. 3D games online), roughly 1-2 billion people.
On the other side, there's several reasons to believe Generative AI is not as transformative as its most bullish boosters assume. For instance:
Why ChatGPT Goes "Wrong" & People Misinterpret It (Comment of the Week)
Most of the key ML/AI papers come from Google Brain and DeepMind. The 2017 paper on transformers "Attention is all you need" came from them too. OpenAI based their GPT models on that (GPT = Generative Pre-trained Transformer).
Since OpenAI couldn't have an edge on research, what could they do to be competitive? Release earlier.
That's pretty easy [to do] as Google and DeepMind are super cautious. Microsoft then joined and invested on OpenAI, of course they want to compete against Google and now you have Bing powered by a language model.
I've got the early access to it since a while and it looks more capable than ChatGPT. However, as you could see, there have been issues immediately. Mostly because of Reddit users trolling the model, then journalists went there and took the sensationalist route. Then Microsoft had to take action by regulating and restricting the usage of the model and now it's harder to investigate its capabilities.
This helps explain how a NYT journalist had a "scary encounter" with ChatGPT; Nade argues he made the same mistake as Blake Lemoine, the Google engineer who believes that LaMDA, the company's experimental chatbot, achieved sentience:
Continue reading "Why ChatGPT Goes "Wrong" & People Misinterpret It (Comment of the Week)" »
Posted on Monday, March 13, 2023 at 04:25 PM in AI, Comment of the Week | Permalink | Comments (2)
|
|