[l33tman]

I started such an alternative project just before GPT-3 was released, it was really promising (lots of neuroscience inspired solutions, pretty different to Transformers) but I had to put it on hold because the investors I approached seemed like they would only invest in LLM-stuff. Now a few years later I'm trying to approach investors again, only to find now they want to invest in companies USING LLMs to create value and still don't seem interested in new foundational types of models... :/

I guess it makes sense, there is still tons of value to be created just by using the current LLMs for stuff, though maybe the low hanging fruits are already picked, who knows.

I heard John Carmack talk a lot about his alternative (also neuroscience-inspired) ideas and it sounded just like my project, the main difference being that he's able to self-fund :) I guess funding an "outsider" non-LLM AI project now requires finding someone like Carmack to get on board - I still don't think traditional investors are that disappointed yet that they want to risk money on other types of projects..

[godelski]

  > I guess funding an "outsider" non-LLM AI project now requires finding someone like Carmack to get on board

And I think this is a big problem. Especially since these investments tend to be a lot cheaper than the existing ones. Hell, there's stuff in my PhD I tabled and several models I made that I'm confident I could have doubled performance with less than a million dollars worth of compute. My methods could already compete while requiring less compute, so why not give them a chance to scale? I've seen this happen to hundreds of methods. If "scale is all you need" then shouldn't the belief that any of those methods would also scale?

[andrepd]

Markets are very good and squeezing profit out of sometimes ludicrous ventures, not good at all for foundational research.

It's the problem of having organised our economic life in this way, or rather, exclusively this way.

[godelski]

  > exclusively this way.

I think an important part is to recognize that fundamental research is extremely foundational. We often don't recognize the impacts because by the time we see them they have passed through other layers. Maybe in the same way that we forget about the ground existing and being the biggest contributor to Usain Bolt's speed. Can't run if there's no ground.

But to see economic impact, I'll make the bet that a single mathematical work (technically two) had a greater economic impact than all technologies in the last 2 centuries. Calculus. I haven't run the calculations (seems like it'd be hard and I'd definitely need calculus to do them), but I'd be willing to bet that every year Calculus results in a greater economic impact than FAANG, MANGO, or whatever the hot term is these days, does.

It seems almost silly to say this and it is obviously so influential. But things like this fade away into the background the same way we almost never think about the ground beneath our feet.

I have to say this because we're living in a time where people are arguing we shouldn't build roads because cars are the things that get us places. But this is just framing, and poor framing at that. Frankly, part of it is that roads are typically built through public funds and cars through private. It's this way because the road is able to make much higher economic impact by being a public utility rather than a private one. Incidentally, this makes the argument to not build roads self-destructive. It's short sighted. Just like actual roads, research has to be continuously performed. The reality is more akin to those cartoon scenes where a character is laying down the railroad tracks just in front of the speeding train.[0] I guess if you're not Gromit placing down the tracks it is easy to assume they just exist.

But unlike actual roads, research is relatively cheap. Sure, maybe a million mathematicians don't produce anything economically viable for that year and maybe not 20, but one will produce something worth trillions. And they do this at a mathematician's salary! You can hire research mathematicians at least 2 to 1 for a junior SWE. 10 to 1 for a staff SWE. It's just crazy to me that we're arguing we don't have the money for these kinds of things. I mean just look at the impact of Tim Berners Lee and his team. That alone offsets all costs for the foreseeable future. Yet somehow his net worth is in the low millions? I think we really should question this notion that wealth is strongly correlated to impact.

[0] Why does a 10hr version of this exist... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwJHNw9jU_U