VibeBuilders.ai Logo
VibeBuilders.ai

All Resources

[N] Inside DeepMind's secret plot to break away from Google
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
MassivePellfishThis week

[N] Inside DeepMind's secret plot to break away from Google

Article https://www.businessinsider.com/deepmind-secret-plot-break-away-from-google-project-watermelon-mario-2021-9 by Hugh Langley and Martin Coulter For a while, some DeepMind employees referred to it as "Watermelon." Later, executives called it "Mario." Both code names meant the same thing: a secret plan to break away from parent company Google. DeepMind feared Google might one day misuse its technology, and executives worked to distance the artificial-intelligence firm from its owner for years, said nine current and former employees who were directly familiar with the plans. This included plans to pursue an independent legal status that would distance the group's work from Google, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private matters. One core tension at DeepMind was that it sold the business to people it didn't trust, said one former employee. "Everything that happened since that point has been about them questioning that decision," the person added. Efforts to separate DeepMind from Google ended in April without a deal, The Wall Street Journal reported. The yearslong negotiations, along with recent shake-ups within Google's AI division, raise questions over whether the search giant can maintain control over a technology so crucial to its future. "DeepMind's close partnership with Google and Alphabet since the acquisition has been extraordinarily successful — with their support, we've delivered research breakthroughs that transformed the AI field and are now unlocking some of the biggest questions in science," a DeepMind spokesperson said in a statement. "Over the years, of course we've discussed and explored different structures within the Alphabet group to find the optimal way to support our long-term research mission. We could not be prouder to be delivering on this incredible mission, while continuing to have both operational autonomy and Alphabet's full support." When Google acquired DeepMind in 2014, the deal was seen as a win-win. Google got a leading AI research organization, and DeepMind, in London, won financial backing for its quest to build AI that can learn different tasks the way humans do, known as artificial general intelligence. But tensions soon emerged. Some employees described a cultural conflict between researchers who saw themselves firstly as academics and the sometimes bloated bureaucracy of Google's colossal business. Others said staff were immediately apprehensive about putting DeepMind's work under the control of a tech giant. For a while, some employees were encouraged to communicate using encrypted messaging apps over the fear of Google spying on their work. At one point, DeepMind's executives discovered that work published by Google's internal AI research group resembled some of DeepMind's codebase without citation, one person familiar with the situation said. "That pissed off Demis," the person added, referring to Demis Hassabis, DeepMind's CEO. "That was one reason DeepMind started to get more protective of their code." After Google restructured as Alphabet in 2015 to give riskier projects more freedom, DeepMind's leadership started to pursue a new status as a separate division under Alphabet, with its own profit and loss statement, The Information reported. DeepMind already enjoyed a high level of operational independence inside Alphabet, but the group wanted legal autonomy too. And it worried about the misuse of its technology, particularly if DeepMind were to ever achieve AGI. Internally, people started referring to the plan to gain more autonomy as "Watermelon," two former employees said. The project was later formally named "Mario" among DeepMind's leadership, these people said. "Their perspective is that their technology would be too powerful to be held by a private company, so it needs to be housed in some other legal entity detached from shareholder interest," one former employee who was close to the Alphabet negotiations said. "They framed it as 'this is better for society.'" In 2017, at a company retreat at the Macdonald Aviemore Resort in Scotland, DeepMind's leadership disclosed to employees its plan to separate from Google, two people who were present said. At the time, leadership said internally that the company planned to become a "global interest company," three people familiar with the matter said. The title, not an official legal status, was meant to reflect the worldwide ramifications DeepMind believed its technology would have. Later, in negotiations with Google, DeepMind pursued a status as a company limited by guarantee, a corporate structure without shareholders that is sometimes used by nonprofits. The agreement was that Alphabet would continue to bankroll the firm and would get an exclusive license to its technology, two people involved in the discussions said. There was a condition: Alphabet could not cross certain ethical redlines, such as using DeepMind technology for military weapons or surveillance. In 2019, DeepMind registered a new company called DeepMind Labs Limited, as well as a new holding company, filings with the UK's Companies House showed. This was done in anticipation of a separation from Google, two former employees involved in those registrations said. Negotiations with Google went through peaks and valleys over the years but gained new momentum in 2020, one person said. A senior team inside DeepMind started to hold meetings with outside lawyers and Google to hash out details of what this theoretical new formation might mean for the two companies' relationship, including specifics such as whether they would share a codebase, internal performance metrics, and software expenses, two people said. From the start, DeepMind was thinking about potential ethical dilemmas from its deal with Google. Before the 2014 acquisition closed, both companies signed an "Ethics and Safety Review Agreement" that would prevent Google from taking control of DeepMind's technology, The Economist reported in 2019. Part of the agreement included the creation of an ethics board that would supervise the research. Despite years of internal discussions about who should sit on this board, and vague promises to the press, this group "never existed, never convened, and never solved any ethics issues," one former employee close to those discussions said. A DeepMind spokesperson declined to comment. DeepMind did pursue a different idea: an independent review board to convene if it were to separate from Google, three people familiar with the plans said. The board would be made up of Google and DeepMind executives, as well as third parties. Former US president Barack Obama was someone DeepMind wanted to approach for this board, said one person who saw a shortlist of candidates. DeepMind also created an ethical charter that included bans on using its technology for military weapons or surveillance, as well as a rule that its technology should be used for ways that benefit society. In 2017, DeepMind started a unit focused on AI ethics research composed of employees and external research fellows. Its stated goal was to "pave the way for truly beneficial and responsible AI." A few months later, a controversial contract between Google and the Pentagon was disclosed, causing an internal uproar in which employees accused Google of getting into "the business of war." Google's Pentagon contract, known as Project Maven, "set alarm bells ringing" inside DeepMind, a former employee said. Afterward, Google published a set of principles to govern its work in AI, guidelines that were similar to the ethical charter that DeepMind had already set out internally, rankling some of DeepMind's senior leadership, two former employees said. In April, Hassabis told employees in an all-hands meeting that negotiations to separate from Google had ended. DeepMind would maintain its existing status inside Alphabet. DeepMind's future work would be overseen by Google's Advanced Technology Review Council, which includes two DeepMind executives, Google's AI chief Jeff Dean, and the legal SVP Kent Walker. But the group's yearslong battle to achieve more independence raises questions about its future within Google. Google's commitment to AI research has also come under question, after the company forced out two of its most senior AI ethics researchers. That led to an industry backlash and sowed doubt over whether it could allow truly independent research. Ali Alkhatib, a fellow at the Center for Applied Data Ethics, told Insider that more public accountability was "desperately needed" to regulate the pursuit of AI by large tech companies. For Google, its investment in DeepMind may be starting to pay off. Late last year, DeepMind announced a breakthrough to help scientists better understand the behavior of microscopic proteins, which has the potential to revolutionize drug discovery. As for DeepMind, Hassabis is holding on to the belief that AI technology should not be controlled by a single corporation. Speaking at Tortoise's Responsible AI Forum in June, he proposed a "world institute" of AI. Such a body might sit under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, Hassabis theorized, and could be filled with top researchers in the field. "It's much stronger if you lead by example," he told the audience, "and I hope DeepMind can be part of that role-modeling for the industry."

[D] Elon Musk has a complex relationship with the A.I. community
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
milaworldThis week

[D] Elon Musk has a complex relationship with the A.I. community

Update: Yann LeCun stepped in, and I think they made peace, after agreeing on the awesomeness of PyTorch 😂 An article about Elon Musk and the machine learning research community leading to some interesting discussions between the head of Facebook AI research (apparently it is not Yann Lecun anymore, but some other dude), and Elon himself. Quotes from the article: Multiple AI researchers from different companies told CNBC that they see Musk’s AI comments as inappropriate and urged the public not to take his views on AI too seriously. The smartest computers can still only excel at a “narrow” selection of tasks and there’s a long way to go before human-level AI is achieved. “A large proportion of the community think he’s a negative distraction,” said an AI executive with close ties to the community who wished to remain anonymous because their company may work for one of Musk’s businesses. “He is sensationalist, he veers wildly between openly worrying about the downside risk of the technology and then hyping the AGI (artificial general intelligence) agenda. Whilst his very real accomplishments are acknowledged, his loose remarks lead to the general public having an unrealistic understanding of the state of AI maturity.” An AI scientist who specializes in speech recognition and wished to remain anonymous to avoid public backlash said Musk is “not always looked upon favorably” by the AI research community. “I instinctively fall on dislike, because he makes up such nonsense,” said another AI researcher at a U.K university who asked to be kept anonymous. “But then he delivers such extraordinary things. It always leaves me wondering, does he know what he’s doing? Is all the visionary stuff just a trick to get an innovative thing to market?” CNBC reached out to Musk and his representatives for this article but is yet to receive a response. (Well, they got one now! 👇) “I believe a lot of people in the AI community would be ok saying it publicly. Elon Musk has no idea what he is talking about when he talks about AI. There is no such thing as AGI and we are nowhere near matching human intelligence. #noAGI” (Jérôme Pesenti, VP of AI at Facebook) “Facebook sucks” (Elon Musk) Article: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/elon-musk-has-a-complex-relationship-with-the-ai-community.html

[Discussion]: Mark Zuckerberg on Meta's Strategy on Open Source and AI during the earnings call
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
noiseinvacuumThis week

[Discussion]: Mark Zuckerberg on Meta's Strategy on Open Source and AI during the earnings call

During the recent earnings call, Mark Zuckerberg answered a question from Eric Sheridan of Goldman Sachs on Meta's AI strategy, opportunities to integrate into products, and why they open source models and how it would benefit their business. I found the reasoning to be very sound and promising for the OSS and AI community. The biggest risk from AI, in my opinion, is not the doomsday scenarios that intuitively come to mind but rather that the most powerful AI systems will only be accessible to the most powerful and resourceful corporations. Quote copied from Ben Thompson's write up on Meta's earning in his Stratechery blog post which goes beyond AI. It's behind a paywall but I highly recommend it personally. Some noteworthy quotes that signal the thought process at Meta FAIR and more broadly We’re just playing a different game on the infrastructure than companies like Google or Microsoft or Amazon We would aspire to and hope to make even more open than that. So, we’ll need to figure out a way to do that. ...lead us to do more work in terms of open sourcing, some of the lower level models and tools Open sourcing low level tools make the way we run all this infrastructure more efficient over time. On PyTorch: It’s generally been very valuable for us to provide that because now all of the best developers across the industry are using tools that we’re also using internally. I would expect us to be pushing and helping to build out an open ecosystem. For all the negative that comes out of the popular discourse on Meta, I think their work to open source key tech tools over the last 10 years has been exceptional, here's hoping it continues into this decade of AI and pushes other tech giants to also realize the benefits of Open Source. Full Transcript: Right now most of the companies that are training large language models have business models that lead them to a closed approach to development. I think there’s an important opportunity to help create an open ecosystem. If we can help be a part of this, then much of the industry will standardize on using these open tools and help improve them further. So this will make it easier for other companies to integrate with our products and platforms as we enable more integrations, and that will help our products stay at the leading edge as well. Our approach to AI and our infrastructure has always been fairly open. We open source many of our state of the art models so people can experiment and build with them. This quarter we released our LLaMa LLM to researchers. It has 65 billion parameters but outperforms larger models and has proven quite popular. We’ve also open-sourced three other groundbreaking visual models along with their training data and model weights — Segment Anything, DinoV2, and our Animated Drawings tool — and we’ve gotten positive feedback on all of those as well. I think that there’s an important distinction between the products we offer and a lot of the technical infrastructure, especially the software that we write to support that. And historically, whether it’s the Open Compute project that we’ve done or just open sourcing a lot of the infrastructure that we’ve built, we’ve historically open sourced a lot of that infrastructure, even though we haven’t open sourced the code for our core products or anything like that. And the reason why I think why we do this is that unlike some of the other companies in the space, we’re not selling a cloud computing service where we try to keep the different software infrastructure that we’re building proprietary. For us, it’s way better if the industry standardizes on the basic tools that we’re using and therefore we can benefit from the improvements that others make and others’ use of those tools can, in some cases like Open Compute, drive down the costs of those things which make our business more efficient too. So I think to some degree we’re just playing a different game on the infrastructure than companies like Google or Microsoft or Amazon, and that creates different incentives for us. So overall, I think that that’s going to lead us to do more work in terms of open sourcing, some of the lower level models and tools. But of course, a lot of the product work itself is going to be specific and integrated with the things that we do. So it’s not that everything we do is going to be open. Obviously, a bunch of this needs to be developed in a way that creates unique value for our products, but I think in terms of the basic models, I would expect us to be pushing and helping to build out an open ecosystem here, which I think is something that’s going to be important. On the AI tools, and we have a bunch of history here, right? So if you if you look at what we’ve done with PyTorch, for example, which has generally become the standard in the industry as a tool that a lot of folks who are building AI models and different things in that space use, it’s generally been very valuable for us to provide that because now all of the best developers across the industry are using tools that we’re also using internally. So the tool chain is the same. So when they create some innovation, we can easily integrate it into the things that we’re doing. When we improve something, it improves other products too. Because it’s integrated with our technology stack, when there are opportunities to make integrations with products, it’s much easier to make sure that developers and other folks are compatible with the things that we need in the way that our systems work. So there are a lot of advantages, but I view this more as a kind of back end infrastructure advantage with potential integrations on the product side, but one that should hopefully enable us to stay at the leading edge and integrate more broadly with the community and also make the way we run all this infrastructure more efficient over time. There are a number of models. I just gave PyTorch as an example. Open Compute is another model that has worked really well for us in this way, both to incorporate both innovation and scale efficiency into our own infrastructure. So I think that there’s, our incentives I think are basically aligned towards moving in this direction. Now that said, there’s a lot to figure out, right? So when you asked if there are going to be other opportunities, I hope so. I can’t speak to what all those things might be now. This is all quite early in getting developed. The better we do at the foundational work, the more opportunities I think that will come and present themselves. So I think that that’s all stuff that we need to figure out. But at least at the base level, I think we’re generally incentivized to move in this direction. And we also need to figure out how to go in that direction over time. I mean, I mentioned LLaMA before and I also want to be clear that while I’m talking about helping contribute to an open ecosystem, LLaMA is a model that we only really made available to researchers and there’s a lot of really good stuff that’s happening there. But a lot of the work that we’re doing, I think, we would aspire to and hope to make even more open than that. So, we’ll need to figure out a way to do that.

[D] How Facebook got addicted to spreading misinformation
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
proof_requiredThis week

[D] How Facebook got addicted to spreading misinformation

Behind paywall: With new machine-learning models coming online daily, the company created a new system to track their impact and maximize user engagement. The process is still the same today. Teams train up a new machine-learning model on FBLearner, whether to change the ranking order of posts or to better catch content that violates Facebook’s community standards (its rules on what is and isn’t allowed on the platform). Then they test the new model on a small subset of Facebook’s users to measure how it changes engagement metrics, such as the number of likes, comments, and shares, says Krishna Gade, who served as the engineering manager for news feed from 2016 to 2018. If a model reduces engagement too much, it’s discarded. Otherwise, it’s deployed and continually monitored. On Twitter, Gade explained that his engineers would get notifications every few days when metrics such as likes or comments were down. Then they’d decipher what had caused the problem and whether any models needed retraining. But this approach soon caused issues. The models that maximize engagement also favor controversy, misinformation, and extremism: put simply, people just like outrageous stuff. Sometimes this inflames existing political tensions. The most devastating example to date is the case of Myanmar, where viral fake news and hate speech about the Rohingya Muslim minority escalated the country’s religious conflict into a full-blown genocide. Facebook admitted in 2018, after years of downplaying its role, that it had not done enough “to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.” While Facebook may have been oblivious to these consequences in the beginning, it was studying them by 2016. In an internal presentation from that year, reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, a company researcher, Monica Lee, found that Facebook was not only hosting a large number of extremist groups but also promoting them to its users: “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools,” the presentation said, predominantly thanks to the models behind the “Groups You Should Join” and “Discover” features. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/11/1020600/facebook-responsible-ai-misinformation/

[D] A Jobless Rant - ML is a Fool's Gold
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
good_riceThis week

[D] A Jobless Rant - ML is a Fool's Gold

Aside from the clickbait title, I am earnestly looking for some advice and discussion from people who are actually employed. That being said, here's my gripe: I have been relentlessly inundated by the words "AI, ML, Big Data" throughout my undergrad from other CS majors, business and sales oriented people, media, and .ai type startups. It seems like everyone was peddling ML as the go to solution, the big money earner, and the future of the field. I've heard college freshman ask stuff like, "if I want to do CS, am I going to need to learn ML to be relevant" - if you're on this sub, I probably do not need to continue to elaborate on just how ridiculous the ML craze is. Every single university has opened up ML departments or programs and are pumping out ML graduates at an unprecedented rate. Surely, there'd be a job market to meet the incredible supply of graduates and cultural interest? Swept up in a mixture of genuine interest and hype, I decided to pursue computer vision. I majored in Math-CS at a top-10 CS university (based on at least one arbitrary ranking). I had three computer vision internships, two at startups, one at NASA JPL, in each doing non-trivial CV work; I (re)implemented and integrated CV systems from mixtures of recently published papers. I have a bunch of projects showing both CV and CS fundamentals (OS, networking, data structures, algorithms, etc) knowledge. I have taken graduate level ML coursework. I was accepted to Carnegie Mellon for an MS in Computer Vision, but I deferred to 2021 - all in all, I worked my ass off to try to simultaneously get a solid background in math AND computer science AND computer vision. That brings me to where I am now, which is unemployed and looking for jobs. Almost every single position I have seen requires a PhD and/or 5+ years of experience, and whatever I have applied for has ghosted me so far. The notion that ML is a high paying in-demand field seems to only be true if your name is Andrej Karpathy - and I'm only sort of joking. It seems like unless you have a PhD from one of the big 4 in CS and multiple publications in top tier journals you're out of luck, or at least vying for one of the few remaining positions at small companies. This seems normalized in ML, but this is not the case for quite literally every other subfield or even generalized CS positions. Getting a high paying job at a Big N company is possible as a new grad with just a bachelors and general SWE knowledge, and there are a plethora of positions elsewhere. Getting the equivalent with basically every specialization, whether operating systems, distributed systems, security, networking, etc, is also possible, and doesn't require 5 CVPR publications. TL;DR From my personal perspective, if you want to do ML because of career prospects, salaries, or job security, pick almost any other CS specialization. In ML, you'll find yourself working 2x as hard through difficult theory and math to find yourself competing with more applicants for fewer positions. I am absolutely complaining and would love to hear a more positive perspective, but in the meanwhile I'll be applying to jobs, working on more post-grad projects, and contemplating switching fields.

[N] Montreal-based Element AI sold for $230-million as founders saw value mostly wiped out
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
sensetimeThis week

[N] Montreal-based Element AI sold for $230-million as founders saw value mostly wiped out

According to Globe and Mail article: Element AI sold for $230-million as founders saw value mostly wiped out, document reveals Montreal startup Element AI Inc. was running out of money and options when it inked a deal last month to sell itself for US$230-milion to Silicon Valley software company ServiceNow Inc., a confidential document obtained by the Globe and Mail reveals. Materials sent to Element AI shareholders Friday reveal that while many of its institutional shareholders will make most if not all of their money back from backing two venture financings, employees will not fare nearly as well. Many have been terminated and had their stock options cancelled. Also losing out are co-founders Jean-François Gagné, the CEO, his wife Anne Martel, the chief administrative officer, chief science officer Nick Chapados and Yoshua Bengio, the University of Montreal professor known as a godfather of “deep learning,” the foundational science behind today’s AI revolution. Between them, they owned 8.8 million common shares, whose value has been wiped out with the takeover, which goes to a shareholder vote Dec 29 with enough investor support already locked up to pass before the takeover goes to a Canadian court to approve a plan of arrangement with ServiceNow. The quartet also owns preferred shares worth less than US$300,000 combined under the terms of the deal. The shareholder document, a management proxy circular, provides a rare look inside efforts by a highly hyped but deeply troubled startup as it struggled to secure financing at the same time as it was failing to live up to its early promises. The circular states the US$230-million purchase price is subject to some adjustments and expenses which could bring the final price down to US$195-million. The sale is a disappointing outcome for a company that burst onto the Canadian tech scene four years ago like few others, promising to deliver AI-powered operational improvements to a range of industries and anchor a thriving domestic AI sector. Element AI became the self-appointed representative of Canada’s AI sector, lobbying politicians and officials and landing numerous photo ops with them, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. It also secured $25-million in federal funding – $20-million of which was committed earlier this year and cancelled by the government with the ServiceNow takeover. Element AI invested heavily in hype and and earned international renown, largely due to its association with Dr. Bengio. It raised US$102-million in venture capital in 2017 just nine months after its founding, an unheard of amount for a new Canadian company, from international backers including Microsoft Corp., Intel Corp., Nvidia Corp., Tencent Holdings Ltd., Fidelity Investments, a Singaporean sovereign wealth fund and venture capital firms. Element AI went on a hiring spree to establish what the founders called “supercredibility,” recruiting top AI talent in Canada and abroad. It opened global offices, including a British operation that did pro bono work to deliver “AI for good,” and its ranks swelled to 500 people. But the swift hiring and attention-seeking were at odds with its success in actually building a software business. Element AI took two years to focus on product development after initially pursuing consulting gigs. It came into 2019 with a plan to bring several AI-based products to market, including a cybersecurity offering for financial institutions and a program to help port operators predict waiting times for truck drivers. It was also quietly shopping itself around. In December 2018, the company asked financial adviser Allen & Co LLC to find a potential buyer, in addition to pursuing a private placement, the circular reveals. But Element AI struggled to advance proofs-of-concept work to marketable products. Several client partnerships faltered in 2019 and 2020. Element did manage to reach terms for a US$151.4-million ($200-million) venture financing in September, 2019 led by the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and backed by the Quebec government and consulting giant McKinsey and Co. However, the circular reveals the company only received the first tranche of the financing – roughly half of the amount – at the time, and that it had to meet unspecified conditions to get the rest. A fairness opinion by Deloitte commissioned as part of the sale process estimated Element AI’s enterprises value at just US$76-million around the time of the 2019 financing, shrinking to US$45-million this year. “However, the conditions precedent the closing of the second tranche … were not going to be met in a timely manner,” the circular reads. It states “new terms were proposed” for a round of financing that would give incoming investors ranking ahead of others and a cumulative dividend of 12 per cent on invested capital and impose “other operating and governance constraints and limitations on the company.” Management instead decided to pursue a sale, and Allen contacted prospective buyers in June. As talks narrowed this past summer to exclusive negotiations with ServiceNow, “the company’s liquidity was diminishing as sources of capital on acceptable terms were scarce,” the circular reads. By late November, it was generating revenue at an annualized rate of just $10-million to $12-million, Deloitte said. As part of the deal – which will see ServiceNow keep Element AI’s research scientists and patents and effectively abandon its business – the buyer has agreed to pay US$10-million to key employees and consultants including Mr. Gagne and Dr. Bengio as part of a retention plan. The Caisse and Quebec government will get US$35.45-million and US$11.8-million, respectively, roughly the amount they invested in the first tranche of the 2019 financing.

[Discussion] When ML and Data Science are the death of a good company: A cautionary tale.
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.6
AlexSnakeKingThis week

[Discussion] When ML and Data Science are the death of a good company: A cautionary tale.

TD;LR: At Company A, Team X does advanced analytics using on-prem ERP tools and older programming languages. Their tools work very well and are designed based on very deep business and domain expertise. Team Y is a new and ambitious Data Science team that thinks they can replace Team X's tools with a bunch of R scripts and a custom built ML platform. Their models are simplistic, but more "fashionable" compared to the econometric models used by Team X, and team Y benefits from the ML/DS moniker so leadership is allowing Team Y to start a large scale overhaul of the analytics platform in question. Team Y doesn't have the experience for such a larger scale transformation, and is refusing to collaborate with team X. This project is very likely going to fail, and cause serious harm to the company as a whole financially and from a people perspective. I argue that this is not just because of bad leadership, but also because of various trends and mindsets in the DS community at large. Update (Jump to below the line for the original story): Several people in the comments are pointing out that this just a management failure, not something due to ML/DS, and that you can replace DS with any buzz tech and the story will still be relevant. My response: Of course, any failure at an organization level is ultimately a management failure one way or the other. Moreover, it is also the case that ML/DS when done correctly, will always improve a company's bottom line. There is no scenario where the proper ML solution, delivered at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion, will somehow hurt the company's bottom line. My point is that in this case management is failing because of certain trends and practices that are specific to the ML/DS community, namely: The idea that DS teams should operate independently of tech and business orgs -- too much autonomy for DS teams The disregard for domain knowledge that seems prevalent nowadays thanks to the ML hype, that DS can be generalists and someone with good enough ML chops can solve any business problem. That wasn't the case when I first left academia for the industry in 2009 (back then nobody would even bother with a phone screen if you didn't have the right domain knowledge). Over reliance on resources who check all the ML hype related boxes (knows Python, R, Tensorflow, Shiny, etc..., has the right Coursera certifications, has blogged on the topic, etc...), but are lacking in depth of experience. DS interviews nowadays all seem to be: Can you tell me what a p-value is? What is elastic net regression? Show me how to fit a model in sklearn? How do you impute NAs in an R dataframe? Any smart person can look those up on Stackoverflow or Cross-Validated,.....Instead teams should be asking stuff like: why does portfolio optimization use QP not LP? How does a forecast influence a customer service level? When should a recommendation engine be content based and when should it use collaborative filtering? etc... (This is a true story, happening to the company I currently work for. Names, domains, algorithms, and roles have been shuffled around to protect my anonymity)  Company A has been around for several decades. It is not the biggest name in its domain, but it is a well respected one. Risk analysis and portfolio optimization have been a core of Company A's business since the 90s. They have a large team of 30 or so analysts who perform those tasks on a daily basis. These analysts use ERP solutions implemented for them by one the big ERP companies (SAP, Teradata, Oracle, JD Edwards,...) or one of the major tech consulting companies (Deloitte, Accenture, PWC, Capgemini, etc...) in collaboration with their own in house engineering team. The tools used are embarrassingly old school: Classic RDBMS running on on-prem servers or maybe even on mainframes, code written in COBOL, Fortran, weird proprietary stuff like ABAP or SPSS.....you get the picture. But the models and analytic functions were pretty sophisticated, and surprisingly cutting edge compared to the published academic literature. Most of all, they fit well with the company's enterprise ecosystem, and were honed based on years of deep domain knowledge.  They have a tech team of several engineers (poached from the aforementioned software and consulting companies) and product managers (who came from the experienced pools of analysts and managers who use the software, or poached from business rivals) maintaining and running this software. Their technology might be old school, but collectively, they know the domain and the company's overall architecture very, very well. They've guided the company through several large scale upgrades and migrations and they have a track record of delivering on time, without too much overhead. The few times they've stumbled, they knew how to pick themselves up very quickly. In fact within their industry niche, they have a reputation for their expertise, and have very good relations with the various vendors they've had to deal with. They were the launching pad of several successful ERP consulting careers.  Interestingly, despite dealing on a daily basis with statistical modeling and optimization algorithms, none of the analysts, engineers, or product managers involved describe themselves as data scientists or machine learning experts. It is mostly a cultural thing: Their expertise predates the Data Science/ML hype that started circa 2010, and they got most of their chops using proprietary enterprise tools instead of the open source tools popular nowadays. A few of them have formal statistical training, but most of them came from engineering or domain backgrounds and learned stats on the fly while doing their job. Call this team "Team X".  Sometime around the mid 2010s, Company A started having some serious anxiety issues: Although still doing very well for a company its size, overall economic and demographic trends were shrinking its customer base, and a couple of so called disruptors came up with a new app and business model that started seriously eating into their revenue. A suitable reaction to appease shareholders and Wall Street was necessary. The company already had a decent website and a pretty snazzy app, what more could be done? Leadership decided that it was high time that AI and ML become a core part of the company's business. An ambitious Manager, with no science or engineering background, but who had very briefly toyed with a recommender system a couple of years back, was chosen to build a data science team, call it team "Y" (he had a bachelor's in history from the local state college and worked for several years in the company's marketing org). Team "Y" consists mostly of internal hires who decided they wanted to be data scientists and completed a Coursera certification or a Galvanize boot camp, before being brought on to the team, along with a few of fresh Ph.D or M.Sc holders who didn't like academia and wanted to try their hand at an industry role. All of them were very bright people, they could write great Medium blog posts and give inspiring TED talks, but collectively they had very little real world industry experience. As is the fashion nowadays, this group was made part of a data science org that reported directly to the CEO and Board, bypassing the CIO and any tech or business VPs, since Company A wanted to claim the monikers "data driven" and "AI powered" in their upcoming shareholder meetings. In 3 or 4 years of existence, team Y produced a few Python and R scripts. Their architectural experience  consisted almost entirely in connecting Flask to S3 buckets or Redshift tables, with a couple of the more resourceful ones learning how to plug their models into Tableau or how to spin up a Kuberneties pod.  But they needn't worry: The aforementioned manager, who was now a director (and was also doing an online Masters to make up for his qualifications gap and bolster his chances of becoming VP soon - at least he now understands what L1 regularization is), was a master at playing corporate politics and self-promotion. No matter how few actionable insights team Y produced or how little code they deployed to production, he always had their back and made sure they had ample funding. In fact he now had grandiose plans for setting up an all-purpose machine learning platform that can be used to solve all of the company's data problems.  A couple of sharp minded members of team Y, upon googling their industry name along with the word "data science", realized that risk analysis was a prime candidate for being solved with Bayesian models, and there was already a nifty R package for doing just that, whose tutorial they went through on R-Bloggers.com. One of them had even submitted a Bayesian classifier Kernel for a competition on Kaggle (he was 203rd on the leaderboard), and was eager to put his new-found expertise to use on a real world problem. They pitched the idea to their director, who saw a perfect use case for his upcoming ML platform. They started work on it immediately, without bothering to check whether anybody at Company A was already doing risk analysis. Since their org was independent, they didn't really need to check with anybody else before they got funding for their initiative. Although it was basically a Naive Bayes classifier, the term ML was added to the project tile, to impress the board.  As they progressed with their work however, tensions started to build. They had asked the data warehousing and CA analytics teams to build pipelines for them, and word eventually got out to team X about their project. Team X was initially thrilled: They offered to collaborate whole heartedly, and would have loved to add an ML based feather to their already impressive cap. The product owners and analysts were totally onboard as well: They saw a chance to get in on the whole Data Science hype that they kept hearing about. But through some weird mix of arrogance and insecurity, team Y refused to collaborate with them or share any of their long term goals with them, even as they went to other parts of the company giving brown bag presentations and tutorials on the new model they created.  Team X got resentful: from what they saw of team Y's model, their approach was hopelessly naive and had little chances of scaling or being sustainable in production, and they knew exactly how to help with that. Deploying the model to production would have taken them a few days, given how comfortable they were with DevOps and continuous delivery (team Y had taken several months to figure out how to deploy a simple R script to production). And despite how old school their own tech was, team X were crafty enough to be able to plug it in to their existing architecture. Moreover, the output of the model was such that it didn't take into account how the business will consume it or how it was going to be fed to downstream systems, and the product owners could have gone a long way in making the model more amenable to adoption by the business stakeholders. But team Y wouldn't listen, and their leads brushed off any attempts at communication, let alone collaboration. The vibe that team Y was giving off was "We are the cutting edge ML team, you guys are the legacy server grunts. We don't need your opinion.", and they seemed to have a complete disregard for domain knowledge, or worse, they thought that all that domain knowledge consisted of was being able to grasp the definitions of a few business metrics.  Team X got frustrated and tried to express their concerns to leadership. But despite owning a vital link in Company A's business process, they were only \~50 people in a large 1000 strong technology and operations org, and they were several layers removed from the C-suite, so it was impossible for them to get their voices heard.  Meanwhile, the unstoppable director was doing what he did best: Playing corporate politics. Despite how little his team had actually delivered, he had convinced the board that all analysis and optimization tasks should now be migrated to his yet to be delivered ML platform. Since most leaders now knew that there was overlap between team Y and team X's objectives, his pitch was no longer that team Y was going to create a new insight, but that they were going to replace (or modernize) the legacy statistics based on-prem tools with more accurate cloud based ML tools. Never mind that there was no support in the academic literature for the idea that Naive Bayes works better than the Econometric approaches used by team X, let alone the additional wacky idea that Bayesian Optimization would definitely outperform the QP solvers that were running in production.  Unbeknownst to team X, the original Bayesian risk analysis project has now grown into a multimillion dollar major overhaul initiative, which included the eventual replacement of all of the tools and functions supported by team X along with the necessary migration to the cloud. The CIO and a couple of business VPs are on now board, and tech leadership is treating it as a done deal. An outside vendor, a startup who nobody had heard of, was contracted to help build the platform, since team Y has no engineering skills. The choice was deliberate, as calling on any of the established consulting or software companies would have eventually led leadership to the conclusion that team X was better suited for a transformation on this scale than team Y.  Team Y has no experience with any major ERP deployments, and no domain knowledge, yet they are being tasked with fundamentally changing the business process that is at the core of Company A's business. Their models actually perform worse than those deployed by team X, and their architecture is hopelessly simplistic, compared to what is necessary for running such a solution in production.  Ironically, using Bayesian thinking and based on all the evidence, the likelihood that team Y succeeds is close to 0%. At best, the project is going to end up being a write off of 50 million dollars or more. Once the !@#$!@hits the fan, a couple of executive heads are going to role, and dozens of people will get laid off. At worst, given how vital risk analysis and portfolio optimization is to Company A's revenue stream, the failure will eventually sink the whole company. It probably won't go bankrupt, but it will lose a significant portion of its business and work force. Failed ERP implementations can and do sink large companies: Just see what happened to National Grid US, SuperValu or Target Canada.  One might argue that this is more about corporate disfunction and bad leadership than about data science and AI. But I disagree. I think the core driver of this debacle is indeed the blind faith in Data Scientists, ML models and the promise of AI, and the overall culture of hype and self promotion that is very common among the ML crowd.  We haven't seen the end of this story: I sincerely hope that this ends well for the sake of my colleagues and all involved. Company A is a good company, and both its customers and its employees deserver better. But the chances of that happening are negligible given all the information available, and this failure will hit my company hard.

[D] What's the endgame for AI labs that are spending billions on training generative models?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
bendee983This week

[D] What's the endgame for AI labs that are spending billions on training generative models?

Given the current craze around LLMs and generative models, frontier AI labs are burning through billions of dollars of VC funding to build GPU clusters, train models, give free access to their models, and get access to licensed data. But what is their game plan for when the excitement dies off and the market readjusts? There are a few challenges that make it difficult to create a profitable business model with current LLMs: The near-equal performance of all frontier models will commoditize the LLM market and force providers to compete over prices, slashing profit margins. Meanwhile, the training of new models remains extremely expensive. Quality training data is becoming increasingly expensive. You need subject matter experts to manually create data or review synthetic data. This in turn makes each iteration of model improvement even more expensive. Advances in open source and open weight models will probably take a huge part of the enterprise market of private models. Advances in on-device models and integration with OS might reduce demand for cloud-based models in the future. The fast update cycles of models gives AI companies a very short payback window to recoup the huge costs of training new models. What will be the endgame for labs such as Anthropic, Cohere, Mistral, Stability, etc. when funding dries up? Will they become more entrenched with big tech companies (e.g., OpenAI and Microsoft) to scale distribution? Will they find other business models? Will they die or be acquired (e.g., Inflection AI)? Thoughts?

[D] LLMs causing more harm than good for the field?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Stevens97This week

[D] LLMs causing more harm than good for the field?

This post might be a bit ranty, but i feel more and more share this sentiment with me as of late. If you bother to read this whole post feel free to share how you feel about this. When OpenAI put the knowledge of AI in the everyday household, I was at first optimistic about it. In smaller countries outside the US, companies were very hesitant before about AI, they thought it felt far away and something only big FANG companies were able to do. Now? Its much better. Everyone is interested in it and wants to know how they can use AI in their business. Which is great! Pre-ChatGPT-times, when people asked me what i worked with and i responded "Machine Learning/AI" they had no clue and pretty much no further interest (Unless they were a tech-person) Post-ChatGPT-times, when I get asked the same questions I get "Oh, you do that thing with the chatbots?" Its a step in the right direction, I guess. I don't really have that much interest in LLMs and have the privilege to work exclusively on vision related tasks unlike some other people who have had to pivot to working full time with LLMs. However, right now I think its almost doing more harm to the field than good. Let me share some of my observations, but before that I want to highlight I'm in no way trying to gatekeep the field of AI in any way. I've gotten job offers to be "ChatGPT expert", What does that even mean? I strongly believe that jobs like these don't really fill a real function and is more of a "hypetrain"-job than a job that fills any function at all. Over the past years I've been going to some conferences around Europe, one being last week, which has usually been great with good technological depth and a place for Data-scientists/ML Engineers to network, share ideas and collaborate. However, now the talks, the depth, the networking has all changed drastically. No longer is it new and exiting ways companies are using AI to do cool things and push the envelope, its all GANs and LLMs with surface level knowledge. The few "old-school" type talks being sent off to a 2nd track in a small room The panel discussions are filled with philosophists with no fundamental knowledge of AI talking about if LLMs will become sentient or not. The spaces for data-scientists/ML engineers are quickly dissapearing outside the academic conferences, being pushed out by the current hypetrain. The hypetrain evangelists also promise miracles and gold with LLMs and GANs, miracles that they will never live up to. When the investors realize that the LLMs cant live up to these miracles they will instantly get more hesitant with funding for future projects within AI, sending us back into an AI-winter once again. EDIT: P.S. I've also seen more people on this reddit appearing claiming to be "Generative AI experts". But when delving deeper it turns out they are just "good prompters" and have no real knowledge, expertice or interest in the actual field of AI or Generative AI.

[N] How Stability AI’s Founder Tanked His Billion-Dollar Startup
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.667
milaworldThis week

[N] How Stability AI’s Founder Tanked His Billion-Dollar Startup

forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrickcai/2024/03/29/how-stability-ais-founder-tanked-his-billion-dollar-startup/ archive no paywall: https://archive.is/snbeV How Stability AI’s Founder Tanked His Billion-Dollar Startup Mar 29, 2024 Stability AI founder Emad Mostaque took the stage last week at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California to roaring applause and an introduction from an AI-generated Aristotle who announced him as “a modern Prometheus” with “the astuteness of Athena and the vision of Daedalus.” “Under his stewardship, AI becomes the Herculean force poised to vanquish the twin serpents of illness and ailment and extend the olive branch of longevity,” the faux Aristotle proclaimed. “I think that’s the best intro I’ve ever had,” Mostaque said. But behind Mostaque's hagiographic introduction lay a grim and fast metastasizing truth. Stability, once one of AI’s buzziest startups, was floundering. It had been running out of money for months and Mostaque had been unable to secure enough additional funding. It had defaulted on payments to Amazon whose cloud service undergirded Stability’s core offerings. The star research team behind its flagship text-to-image generator Stable Diffusion had tendered their resignations just three days before — as Forbes would first report — and other senior leaders had issued him an ultimatum: resign, or we walk too. Still, onstage before a massive audience of peers and acolytes, Mostaque talked a big game. “AI is jet planes for the mind,” he opined. “AI is our collective intelligence. It's the human Colossus.” He claimed a new, faster version of the Stable Diffusion image generator released earlier this month could generate “200 cats with hats per second.” But later, when he was asked about Stability’s financial model, Mostaque fumbled. “I can’t say that publicly,” he replied. “But it’s going well. We’re ahead of forecast.” Four days later, Mostaque stepped down as CEO of Stability, as Forbes first reported. In a post to X, the service formerly known as Twitter, he claimed he’d voluntarily abdicated his role to decentralize “the concentration of power in AI.” But sources told Forbes that was hardly the case. Behind the scenes, Mostaque had fought to maintain his position and control despite mounting pressure externally and internally to step down. Company documents and interviews with 32 current and former employees, investors, collaborators and industry observers suggest his abrupt exit was the result of poor business judgment and wild overspending that undermined confidence in his vision and leadership, and ultimately kneecapped the company. Mostaque, through his attorneys, declined to comment on record on a detailed list of questions about the reporting in this story. But in an email to Forbes earlier this week he broadly disputed the allegations. “Nobody tells you how hard it is to be a CEO and there are better CEOs than me to scale a business,” he said in a statement. “I am not sure anyone else would have been able to build and grow the research team to build the best and most widely used models out there and I’m very proud of the team there. I look forward to moving onto the next problem to handle and hopefully move the needle.” In an emailed statement, Christian Laforte and Shan Shan Wong, the interim co-CEOs who replaced Mostaque, said, "the company remains focused on commercializing its world leading technology” and providing it “to partners across the creative industries." After starting Stability in 2019, Mostaque built the company into an early AI juggernaut by seizing upon a promising research project that would become Stable Diffusion and funding it into a business reality. The ease with which the software generated detailed images from the simplest text prompts immediately captivated the public: 10 million people used it on any given day, the company told Forbes in early 2023. For some true believers, Mostaque was a crucial advocate for open-source AI development in a space dominated by the closed systems of OpenAI, Google and Anthropic. But his startup’s rise to one of the buzziest in generative AI was in part built on a series of exaggerations and misleading claims, as Forbes first reported last year (Mostaque disputed some points at the time). And they continued after he raised $100 million at a $1 billion valuation just days after launching Stable Diffusion in 2022. His failure to deliver on an array of grand promises, like building bespoke AI models for nation states, and his decision to pour tens of millions into research without a sustainable business plan, eroded Stability’s foundations and jeopardized its future. "He was just giving shit away,” one former employee told Forbes. “That man legitimately wanted to transform the world. He actually wanted to train AI models for kids in Malawi. Was it practical? Absolutely not." By October 2023, Stability would have less than $4 million left in the bank, according to an internal memo prepared for a board meeting and reviewed by Forbes. And mounting debt, including months of overdue Amazon Web Services payments, had already left it in the red. To avoid legal penalties for skipping Americans staff’s payroll, the document explained, the London-based startup was considering delaying tax payments to the U.K. government. It was Stability’s armada of GPUs, the wildly powerful and equally expensive chips undergirding AI, that were so taxing the company’s finances. Hosted by AWS, they had long been one of Mostaque’s bragging points; he often touted them as one of the world’s 10 largest supercomputers. They were responsible for helping Stability’s researchers build and maintain one of the top AI image generators, as well as break important new ground on generative audio, video and 3D models. “Undeniably, Stability has continued to ship a lot of models,” said one former employee. “They may not have profited off of it, but the broader ecosystem benefitted in a huge, huge way.” But the costs associated with so much compute were now threatening to sink the company. According to an internal October financial forecast seen by Forbes, Stability was on track to spend $99 million on compute in 2023. It noted as well that Stability was “underpaying AWS bills for July (by $1M)” and “not planning to pay AWS at the end of October for August usage ($7M).” Then there were the September and October bills, plus $1 million owed to Google Cloud and $600,000 to GPU cloud data center CoreWeave. (Amazon, Google and CoreWeave declined to comment.) With an additional $54 million allocated to wages and operating expenses, Stability’s total projected costs for 2023 were $153 million. But according to its October financial report, its projected revenue for the calendar year was just $11 million. Stability was on track to lose more money per month than it made in an entire year. The company’s dire financial position had thoroughly soured Stability’s current investors, including Coatue, which had invested tens of millions in the company during its $101 million funding round in 2022. In the middle of 2023, Mostaque agreed to an independent audit after Coatue raised a series of concerns, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. The outcome of the investigation is unclear. Coatue declined to comment. Within a week of an early October board meeting where Mostaque shared that financial forecast, Lightspeed Venture Partners, another major investor, sent a letter to the board urging them to sell the company. The distressing numbers had “severely undermined” the firm’s confidence in Mostaque’s ability to lead the company. “In particular, we are surprised and deeply concerned by a cash position just now disclosed to us that is inconsistent with prior discussions on this topic,” Lightspeed’s general counsel Brett Nissenberg wrote in the letter, a copy of which was viewed by Forbes. “Lightspeed believes that the company is not likely financeable on terms that would assure the company’s long term sound financial position.” (Lightspeed declined a request for comment.) The calls for a sale led Stability to quietly begin looking for a buyer. Bloomberg reported in November that Stability approached AI startups Cohere and Jasper to gauge their interest. Stability denied this, and Jasper CEO Timothy Young did the same when reached for comment by Forbes. A Cohere representative declined to comment. But one prominent AI company confirmed that Mostaque’s representatives had reached out to them to test the waters. Those talks did not advance because “the numbers didn’t add up,” this person, who declined to be named due to the confidential nature of the talks, told Forbes. Stability also tried to court Samsung as a buyer, going so far as to redecorate its office in advance of a planned meeting with the Korean electronics giant. (Samsung said that it invested in Stability in 2023 and that it does not comment on M&A discussions.) Coatue had been calling for Mostaque’s resignation for months, according to a source with direct knowledge. But it and other investors were unable to oust him because he was the company’s majority shareholder. When they tried a different tact by rallying other investors to offer him a juicy equity package to resign, Mostaque refused, said two sources. By October, Coatue and Lightspeed had had enough. Coatue left the board and Lightspeed resigned its observer seat. “Emad infuriated our initial investors so much it’s just making it impossible for us to raise more money under acceptable terms,” one current Stability executive told Forbes. The early months of 2024 saw Stability’s already precarious position eroding further still. Employees were quietly laid off. Three people in a position to know estimated that at least 10% of staff were cut. And cash reserves continued to dwindle. Mostaque mentioned a lifeline at the October board meeting: $95 million in tentative funding from new investors, pending due diligence. But in the end, only a fraction of it was wired, two sources say, much of it from Intel, which Forbes has learned invested $20 million, a fraction of what was reported. (Intel did not return a request for comment by publication time.) Two hours after Forbes broke the news of Mostaque’s plans to step down as CEO, Stability issued a press release confirming his resignation. Chief operating officer Wong and chief technology officer Laforte have taken over in the interim. Mostaque, who said on X that he still owns a majority of the company, also stepped down from the board, which has now initiated a search for a permanent CEO. There is a lot of work to be done to turn things around, and very little time in which to do it. Said the current Stability executive, “There’s still a possibility of a turnaround story, but the odds drop by the day.” In July of 2023, Mostaque still thought he could pull it off. Halfway through the month, he shared a fundraising plan with his lieutenants. It was wildly optimistic, detailing the raise of $500 million in cash and another $750 million in computing facilities from marquee investors like Nvidia, Google, Intel and the World Bank (Nvidia and Google declined comment. Intel did not respond. The World Bank said it did not invest in Stability). In a Slack message reviewed by Forbes, Mostaque said Google was “willing to move fast” and the round was “likely to be oversubscribed.” It wasn’t. Three people with direct knowledge of these fundraising efforts told Forbes that while there was some interest in Stability, talks often stalled when it came time to disclose financials. Two of them noted that earlier in the year, Mostaque had simply stopped engaging with VCs who asked for numbers. Only one firm invested around that time: actor Ashton Kutcher’s Sound Ventures, which invested $35 million in the form of a convertible SAFE note during the second quarter, according to an internal document. (Sound Ventures did not respond to a request for comment.) And though he’d managed to score a meeting with Nvidia and its CEO Jensen Huang, it ended in disaster, according to two sources. “Under Jensen's microscopic questions, Emad just fell apart,” a source in position to know told Forbes. Huang quickly concluded Stability wasn’t ready for an investment from Nvidia, the sources said. Mostaque told Forbes in an email that he had not met with Huang since 2022, except to say “hello and what’s up a few times after.” His July 2023 message references a plan to raise $150 million from Nvidia. (Nvidia declined to comment.) After a June Forbes investigation citing more than 30 sources revealed Mostaque’s history of misleading claims, Mostaque struggled to raise funding, a Stability investor told Forbes. (Mostaque disputed the story at the time and called it "coordinated lies" in his email this week to Forbes). Increasingly, investors scrutinized his assertions and pressed for data. And Young, now the CEO of Jasper, turned down a verbal offer to be Stability’s president after reading the article, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. The collapse of the talks aggravated the board and other executives, who had hoped Young would compensate for the sales and business management skills that Mostaque lacked, according to four people in a position to know. (Young declined to comment.) When Stability’s senior leadership convened in London for the CogX conference in September, the financing had still not closed. There, a group of executives confronted Mostaque asking questions about the company’s cash position and runway, according to three people with direct knowledge of the incident. They did not get the clarity they’d hoped for. By October, Mostaque had reduced his fundraising target by more than 80%. The months that followed saw a steady drumbeat of departures — general counsel Adam Avrunin, vice presidents Mike Melnicki, Ed Newton-Rex and Joe Penna, chief people officer Ozden Onder — culminating in the demoralizing March exit of Stable Diffusion’s primary developers Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Patrick Esser and Dominik Lorenz. Rombach, who led the team, had been angling to leave for months, two sources said, first threatening to resign last summer because of the fundraising failures. Others left over concerns about cash flow, as well as liabilities — including what four people described as Mostaque’s lax approach to ensuring that Stability products could not be used to produce child sexual abuse imagery. “Stability AI is committed to preventing the misuse of AI and prohibits the use of our image models and services for unlawful activity, including attempts to edit or create CSAM,” Ella Irwin, senior vice president of integrity, said in a statement. Newton-Rex told Forbes he resigned because he disagreed with Stability’s position that training AI on copyrighted work without consent is fair use. Melnicki and Penna declined to comment. Avrunin and Onder could not be reached for comment. None of the researchers responded to requests for comment. The Stable Diffusion researchers’ departure as a cohort says a lot about the state of Stability AI. The company’s researchers were widely viewed as its crown jewels, their work subsidized with a firehose of pricey compute power that was even extended to people outside the company. Martino Russi, an artificial intelligence researcher, told Forbes that though he was never formally employed by Stability, the company provided him a “staggering” amount of compute between January and April 2023 to play around with developing an AI video generator that Stability might someday use. “It was Candy Land or Coney Island,” said Russi, who estimates that his experiment, which was ultimately shelved, cost the company $2.5 million. Stable Diffusion was simultaneously Stability’s marquee product and its existential cash crisis. One current employee described it to Forbes as “a giant vacuum that absorbed everything: money, compute, people.” While the software was widely used, with Mostaque claiming downloads reaching into the hundreds of millions, Stability struggled to translate that wild success into revenue. Mostaque knew it could be done — peers at Databricks, Elastic and MongoDB had all turned a free product into a lucrative business — he just couldn’t figure out how. His first attempt was Stability’s API, which allowed paying customers to integrate Stable Diffusion into their own products. In early 2023, a handful of small companies, like art generator app NightCafe and presentation software startup Tome, signed on, according to four people with knowledge of the deals. But Stability’s poor account management services soured many, and in a matter of months NightCafe and Tome canceled their contracts, three people said. NightCafe founder Angus Russell told Forbes that his company switched to a competitor which “offered much cheaper inference costs and a broader service.” Tome did not respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, Mostaque’s efforts to court larger companies like Samsung and Snapchat were failing, according to five people familiar with the effort. Canva, which was already one of the heaviest users of open-sourced Stable Diffusion, had multiple discussions with Stability, which was angling for a contract it hoped would generate several millions in annual revenue. But the deal never materialized, four sources said. “These three companies wanted and needed us,” one former employee told Forbes. “They would have been the perfect customers.” (Samsung, Snap and Canva declined to comment.) “It’s not that there was not an appetite to pay Stability — there were tons of companies that would have that wanted to,” the former employee said. “There was a huge opportunity and demand, but just a resistance to execution.” Mostaque’s other big idea was to provide governments with bespoke national AI models that would invigorate their economies and citizenry. “Emad envisions a world where AI through 100 national models serves not as a tool of the few, but as a benefactor to all promising to confront great adversaries, cancer, autism, and the sands of time itself,” the AI avatar of Aristotle said in his intro at the conference. Mostaque told several prospective customers that he could deliver such models within 60 days — an untenable timeline, according to two people in position to know. Stability attempted to develop a model for the Singaporean government over the protestation of employees who questioned its technical feasibility, three sources familiar with the effort told Forbes. But it couldn’t pull it off and Singapore never became a customer. (The government of Singapore confirmed it did not enter into a deal with Stability, but declined to answer additional questions.) As Stability careened from one new business idea to another, resources were abruptly reallocated and researchers reassigned. The whiplash shifts in a largely siloed organization demoralized and infuriated employees. “There were ‘urgent’ things, ‘urgent urgent’ things and ‘most urgent,’” one former employee complained. “None of these things seem important if everything is important.” Another former Stability executive was far more pointed in their assessment. “Emad is the most disorganized leader I have ever worked with in my career,” this person told Forbes. “He has no vision, and changes directions every week, often based on what he sees on Twitter.” In a video interview posted shortly before this story was published, Mostaque explained his leadership style: “I'm particularly great at taking creatives, developers, researchers, others, and achieving their full potential in designing systems. But I should not be dealing with, you know, HR and operations and business development and other elements. There are far better people than me to do that.” By December 2023, Stability had partially abandoned its open-source roots and announced that any commercial use of Stable Diffusion would cost customers at least $20 per month (non-commercial and research use of Stable Diffusion would remain free). But privately, Stability was considering a potentially more lucrative source of revenue: reselling the compute it was leasing from providers like AWS, according to six people familiar with the effort. Though it was essentially GPU arbitrage, Stability framed the strategy to investors as a “managed services” offering. Its damning October financial report projected optimistically that such an offering would bring in $139 million in 2024 — 98% of its revenue. Multiple employees at the time told Forbes they feared reselling compute, even if the company called it “managed services,” would violate the terms of Stability’s contract with AWS. Amazon declined to comment. “The line internally was that we are not reselling compute,” one former employee said. “This was some of the dirtiest feeling stuff.” Stability also discussed reselling a cluster of Nvidia A100 chips, leased via CoreWeave, to the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, three sources said. “It was under the guise of managed services, but there wasn’t any management happening,” one of these people told Forbes. Andreessen Horowitz and CoreWeave declined to comment. Stability did not respond to questions about if it plans to continue this strategy now that Mostaque is out of the picture. Regardless, interim co-CEOs Wong and Laforte are on a tight timeline to clean up his mess. Board chairman Jim O’Shaughnessy said in a statement that he was confident the pair “will adeptly steer the company forward in developing and commercializing industry-leading generative AI products.” But burn continues to far outpace revenue. The Financial Times reported Friday that the company made $5.4 million of revenue in February, against $8 million in costs. Several sources said there are ongoing concerns about making payroll for the roughly 150 remaining employees. Leadership roles have gone vacant for months amid the disarray, leaving the company increasingly directionless. Meanwhile, a potentially catastrophic legal threat looms over the company: A trio of copyright infringement lawsuits brought by Getty Images and a group of artists in the U.S. and U.K., who claim Stability illegally used their art and photography to train the AI models powering Stable Diffusion. A London-based court has already rejected the company’s bid to throw out one of the lawsuits on the basis that none of its researchers were based in the U.K. And Stability’s claim that Getty’s Delaware lawsuit should be blocked because it's a U.K.-based company was rejected. (Stability did not respond to questions about the litigation.) AI-related copyright litigation “could go on for years,” according to Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University. He told Forbes that though plaintiffs suing AI firms face an uphill battle overcoming the existing legal precedent on copyright infringement, the quantity of arguments available to make are virtually inexhaustible. “Like in military theory, if there’s a gap in your lines, that’s where the enemy pours through — if any one of those arguments succeeds, it could completely change the generative AI environment,” he said. “In some sense, generative AI as an industry has to win everything.” Stability, which had more than $100 million in the bank just a year and a half ago, is in a deep hole. Not only does it need more funding, it needs a viable business model — or a buyer with the vision and chops to make it successful in a fast-moving and highly competitive sector. At an all hands meeting this past Monday, Stability’s new leaders detailed a path forward. One point of emphasis: a plan to better manage resources and expenses, according to one person in attendance. It’s a start, but Mostaque’s meddling has left them with little runway to execute. His resignation, though, has given some employees hope. “A few people are 100% going to reconsider leaving after today,” said one current employee. “And the weird gloomy aura of hearing Emad talking nonsense for an hour is gone.” Shortly before Mostaque resigned, one current Stability executive told Forbes that they were optimistic his departure could make Stability appealing enough to receive a small investment or sale to a friendly party. “There are companies that have raised hundreds of millions of dollars that have much less intrinsic value than Stability,” the person said. “A white knight may still appear.”

[D] Overwhelmed by fast advances in recent weeks
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
iamx9000againThis week

[D] Overwhelmed by fast advances in recent weeks

I was watching the GTC keynote and became entirely overwhelmed by the amount of progress achieved from last year. I'm wondering how everyone else feels. ​ Firstly, the entire ChatGPT, GPT-3/GPT-4 chaos has been going on for a few weeks, with everyone scrambling left and right to integrate chatbots into their apps, products, websites. Twitter is flooded with new product ideas, how to speed up the process from idea to product, countless promp engineering blogs, tips, tricks, paid courses. ​ Not only was ChatGPT disruptive, but a few days later, Microsoft and Google also released their models and integrated them into their search engines. Microsoft also integrated its LLM into its Office suite. It all happenned overnight. I understand that they've started integrating them along the way, but still, it seems like it hapenned way too fast. This tweet encompases the past few weeks perfectly https://twitter.com/AlphaSignalAI/status/1638235815137386508 , on a random Tuesday countless products are released that seem revolutionary. ​ In addition to the language models, there are also the generative art models that have been slowly rising in mainstream recognition. Now Midjourney AI is known by a lot of people who are not even remotely connected to the AI space. ​ For the past few weeks, reading Twitter, I've felt completely overwhelmed, as if the entire AI space is moving beyond at lightning speed, whilst around me we're just slowly training models, adding some data, and not seeing much improvement, being stuck on coming up with "new ideas, that set us apart". ​ Watching the GTC keynote from NVIDIA I was again, completely overwhelmed by how much is being developed throughout all the different domains. The ASML EUV (microchip making system) was incredible, I have no idea how it does lithography and to me it still seems like magic. The Grace CPU with 2 dies (although I think Apple was the first to do it?) and 100 GB RAM, all in a small form factor. There were a lot more different hardware servers that I just blanked out at some point. The omniverse sim engine looks incredible, almost real life (I wonder how much of a domain shift there is between real and sim considering how real the sim looks). Beyond it being cool and usable to train on synthetic data, the car manufacturers use it to optimize their pipelines. This change in perspective, of using these tools for other goals than those they were designed for I find the most interesting. ​ The hardware part may be old news, as I don't really follow it, however the software part is just as incredible. NVIDIA AI foundations (language, image, biology models), just packaging everything together like a sandwich. Getty, Shutterstock and Adobe will use the generative models to create images. Again, already these huge juggernauts are already integrated. ​ I can't believe the point where we're at. We can use AI to write code, create art, create audiobooks using Britney Spear's voice, create an interactive chatbot to converse with books, create 3D real-time avatars, generate new proteins (?i'm lost on this one), create an anime and countless other scenarios. Sure, they're not perfect, but the fact that we can do all that in the first place is amazing. ​ As Huang said in his keynote, companies want to develop "disruptive products and business models". I feel like this is what I've seen lately. Everyone wants to be the one that does something first, just throwing anything and everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. ​ In conclusion, I'm feeling like the world is moving so fast around me whilst I'm standing still. I want to not read anything anymore and just wait until everything dies down abit, just so I can get my bearings. However, I think this is unfeasible. I fear we'll keep going in a frenzy until we just burn ourselves at some point. ​ How are you all fairing? How do you feel about this frenzy in the AI space? What are you the most excited about?

[D] if your company is ingesting work emails and chats for AI/ML pipelines, is there concern around sensitive business info getting out?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Efficient-Proof-1824This week

[D] if your company is ingesting work emails and chats for AI/ML pipelines, is there concern around sensitive business info getting out?

Edit: to be more specific - around sensitive raw data/metadata being dumped in system logs and accidentally viewed by an insider Hi folks Firstly full disclosure I’m the CEO of DataFog (www.datafog.ai). This is NOT a sales pitch but rather an interest in hearing what the community thinks about the overall issue which I believe will ultimately be solved via an ML-based implementation. My contention is: Generative AI has catalyzed widespread practice of ingesting email and work chat content to power AI training and inference this introduces a risk of content concerning confidential corporate affairs\ that can pass most privacy filters This results in Raw data alluding to sensitive business events flowing in freely for easy accidental unauthorized access by an internal - like MLOps - user My second contention is that the current security tools may not offer adequate coverage for what will be an evolving ongoing need that run of the mill PII redactors can’t account for. Take this statement which might easily be found in the inbox of the C-Suite for one of these two companies under “CiscoAcqPR\_Draft.docx” or the like: Cisco offered $157 in cash for each share of Splunk, representing a 31% premium to the company's last closing price. I myself have run various merger docs and legal filings through some standard PII tools and all of them fail to redact mention of deal terms. ~~A model training on phrases like “ $157 in cash per share” could have negative downstream inferential consequences or~~ if viewed accidentally by someone internally without the right access privileges How’re you all thinking about this problem? Custom recognizers are a common option like what you see with Microsoft Presidio but I’ve heard from some that maintaining those can be a PITA. At big companies this has been solved through internal tooling. \*more than Personally Identifiable Information (PII), HIPAA, or customer transaction data. It’s about those emails the CEO has sent to the Board of Directors in the midst of a corporate crisis, or the email thread between the C-Suite regarding an upcoming Earnings Call, or the market-moving announcement in the works regarding a merger with a competitor. In other words, Non-PII content that still needs to be redacted.

[R] Evaluating Video Models on Impossible Scenarios: A Benchmark for Generation and Understanding of Counterfactual Videos
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
Successful-Western27This week

[R] Evaluating Video Models on Impossible Scenarios: A Benchmark for Generation and Understanding of Counterfactual Videos

IPV-Bench: Evaluating Video Generation Models with Physically Impossible Scenarios Researchers have created a new benchmark called IPV-Bench to evaluate how well video generation models understand basic physics and logic. This benchmark contains 1,000 carefully crafted prompts that test models on their ability to handle physically impossible scenarios across 9 categories including gravity violations, object permanence issues, and logical contradictions. The key methodology included: Testing models with both "create impossible" prompts (asking for impossibilities) and "avoid impossible" prompts (requesting physically plausible videos) Evaluating videos through both automated metrics and human assessment Testing across multiple state-of-the-art models including Sora, Morph-E, WALT, Show-1, Gen-2, Runway, Pika, and LaVie Developing a detailed taxonomy of impossible physics scenarios Main findings: Current SOTA models produce physically impossible content 20-40% of the time even when explicitly asked to follow physics laws Performance was worst on "change impossibilities" and "contact impossibilities" (~50% accuracy) Different models show different "impossibility profiles" - making distinct types of physical reasoning errors Strong text understanding doesn't guarantee strong physical reasoning Human evaluators easily identified these impossibilities, highlighting the gap between AI and human understanding I think this research reveals a fundamental limitation in current video generation systems - they lack the intuitive physics understanding that humans develop naturally. This matters significantly for applications where physical plausibility is important, like simulation, education, or training robotics systems. The benchmark provides a systematic way to measure progress in this area, which will be crucial as these models become more widely deployed. The taxonomy they've developed is particularly useful as it gives us a framework for thinking about different types of physical reasoning failures. I suspect we'll see this benchmark become an important tool for improving the next generation of video models. TLDR: IPV-Bench is a new benchmark testing video models' understanding of physical impossibilities. Current models frequently generate physically impossible content even when instructed not to, showing they lack true understanding of how the physical world works. Full summary is here. Paper here.

[News] AAAI 2025 Workshop on AI for Music 🎶
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
Saysike_rightnow69This week

[News] AAAI 2025 Workshop on AI for Music 🎶

Hi everyone! We’re hosting the first “AI for Music” workshop at AAAI on March 3, 2025. The workshop will explore how AI is transforming music creation, recognition, education, and more. Topics include AI-driven composition, sound design, legal and ethical challenges, and AI’s impact on musicians’ careers. Submissions (up to 6 pages) are welcome until November 22, 2024. Work in progress is encouraged! Workshop Summary This one-day workshop will explore the dynamic intersection of artificial intelligence and music. It explores how AI is transforming music creation, recognition, and education, ethical and legal implications, as well as business opportunities. We will investigate how AI is changing the music industry and education—from composition to performance, production, collaboration, and audience experience. Participants will gain insights into the technological challenges in music and how AI can enhance creativity, enabling musicians and producers to push the boundaries of their art. The workshop will cover topics such as AI-driven music composition, where algorithms generate melodies, harmonies, and even full orchestral arrangements. We will discuss how AI tools assist in sound design, remixing, and mastering, allowing for new sonic possibilities and efficiencies in music production. Additionally, we'll examine AI's impact on music education and the careers of musicians, exploring advanced learning tools and teaching methods. AI technologies are increasingly adopted in the music and entertainment industry. The workshop will also discuss the legal and ethical implications of AI in music, including questions of authorship, originality, and the evolving role of human artists in an increasingly automated world. This workshop is designed for AI researchers, musicians, producers, and educators interested in the current status and future of AI in music. Call for Papers Submissions should be a maximum of 6 pages. Work in progress is welcome. Authors are encouraged to include descriptions of their prototype implementations. Additionally, authors are encouraged to interact with workshop attendees by including posters or demonstrations at the end of the workshop. Conceptual designs without any evidence of practical implementation are discouraged. Topics of interest are (but not limited to) AI-Driven Music Composition and Generation AI in Music Practice and Performance AI-based Music Recognition and Transcription AI Applications in Sound Design AI-Generated Videos and Lyrics Based on Music Legal and Ethical Implications of AI in Music AI’s Impact on Musicians’ Careers and Education Business Opportunities of AI in Music Music Datasets and Data Analysis Important Dates Submission Deadline: November 22, 2024 Notification: December 9, 2024 Final Version Due: December 31, 2024 We hope to see you there! 🎶

[D] Working with Various OpenAI Models - My Thoughts and Experiences
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
bart_soThis week

[D] Working with Various OpenAI Models - My Thoughts and Experiences

I'd like to share some of my insights from working with OpenAI models on my project. I'm not exactly a tech person, so some of these observations might be obvious to some of you, but I think they're worth sharing for those with less experience or who aren't directly in the field. Intro: In early February, my friends and I started a side project where we aimed to build an AI portal called DoMoreAI. For the first two months, we focused on creating an AI tools catalog. Our experiment is based on the idea that in the future, companies will be "Managed by AI, and Driven by Humans." So, our goal was to leave as much as possible to AI and automation, with all the consequences that come with it. As mentioned before, I'm not a tech guy, but I've been playing with OpenAI models for the past few years, so I had some experience when starting this project. Tasks We Assigned to AI: Based on an AI tool's front page, we had the AI write a one-sentence summary of an AI project + write a more in-depth review of the project, categorize the project into different categories (WHAT category, like blog; TASK category, like writing; FOR category, like content creator), decide if the project offers iOS app, Android app, browser extension, API, find social media links, process information about prices and pricing policy, and more. Interesting Findings: When working on a more complex prompt, particularly one with several tasks, you have to be patient when crafting it. You might eventually find the right wording to achieve the desired results, but it takes time and lots of trial and error. You might even be surprised by what works and what doesn't. If cost isn't an issue, you can always break up one complex prompt into several smaller prompts. However, the more requests you send, the higher the chance of encountering errors like the 429 error, which may require setting up more sophisticated error handlers for the whole process. You need error handlers because, without them, the automation process will suffer. With more complex prompts, there are no prompts that always yield the expected results, so you have to plan for what to do if the results aren't satisfactory and how to determine if the result meets your expectations or not. GPT-3.0 struggled with outputting JSON strings as requested, but GPT-3.5 is much better at this task. I'd say the number of errors from improperly formatting the response in JSON is 3-4 times lower for GPT-3.5. AI models have trouble distinguishing words singular forms from plural forms. Just because you can use AI for a given task doesn't mean you should. Often, standard techniques like using regex can yield better results when extracting something from text than relying solely on AI. A hybrid solution often provides the best results. We're using ADA vector embeddings and Pinecone for semantic search in our catalog, and I was really surprised to find that this kind of semantic search works in any language. Even if all the content on our page is in English, you can search in another language and still get decent results. The Best Mishaps: As you may know, there's a token limit for requests, so we have to ensure that we don't send too long a part of the front page to the model. Sometimes, this led to funny situations. If the HTML of the page consists mainly of styles and the model is fed only with styles, then when you ask the AI to write a review of the project, it writes about how beautiful, mobile-friendly, etc., the project is. For one project, instead of writing the one-sentence summary, the model's output only included the prompt we were using to generate the summary (needless to say, it was automatically published on our website ;)) ​ I hope this post will be useful. We are currently running a campaign on Product Hunt: https://www.producthunt.com/posts/domore-ai So, if you have any feedback for us or think what we're doing is cool, don't hesitate to support us :)

[D] Last Week in Medical AI: Top LLM Research Papers/Models (December 7 - December 14, 2024)
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
aadityauraThis week

[D] Last Week in Medical AI: Top LLM Research Papers/Models (December 7 - December 14, 2024)

[\[D\] Last Week in Medical AI: Top LLM Research Papers\/Models \(December 7 - December 14, 2024\)](https://preview.redd.it/o23fp3csj07e1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69e19fc351b3aa5e34c4c00e66245583f88bd9bb) Medical LLM & Other Models PediaBench: Chinese Pediatric LLM This paper introduces PediaBench, the first Chinese pediatric dataset for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) question-answering performance, containing 4,565 objective and 1,632 subjective questions across 12 disease groups. BiMediX: Bilingual Medical LLM This paper introduces BiMediX, the first bilingual (English-Arabic) medical Mixture of Experts LLM, along with BiMed1.3M, a 1.3M bilingual medical instruction dataset with over 632M tokens used for training. Diverse medical knowledge integration This paper introduces BiMediX2, a bilingual (Arabic-English) Large Multimodal Model (LMM) based on Llama3.1 architecture, trained on 1.6M medical interaction samples. BRAD: Digital Biology Language Model This paper introduces BRAD (Bioinformatics Retrieval Augmented Digital assistant), an LLM-powered chatbot and agent system integrating various bioinformatics tools. MMedPO: Vision-Language Medical LLM This paper introduces MMedPO, a multimodal medical preference optimization approach to improve factual accuracy in Medical Large Vision-Language Models (Med-LVLMs) by addressing modality misalignment. Frameworks & Methodologies \- TOP-Training: Medical Q&A Framework \- Hybrid RAG: Secure Medical Data Management \- Zero-Shot ATC Clinical Coding \- Chest X-Ray Diagnosis Architecture \- Medical Imaging AI Democratization Benchmarks & Evaluations \- KorMedMCQA: Korean Healthcare Licensing Benchmark \- Large Language Model Medical Tasks \- Clinical T5 Model Performance Study \- Radiology Report Quality Assessment \- Genomic Analysis Benchmarking LLM Applications \- TCM-FTP: Herbal Prescription Prediction \- LLaSA: Activity Analysis via Sensors \- Emergency Department Visit Predictions \- Neurodegenerative Disease AI Diagnosis \- Kidney Disease Explainable AI Model Ethical AI & Privacy \- Privacy-Preserving LLM Mechanisms \- AI-Driven Digital Organism Modeling \- Biomedical Research Automation \- Multimodality in Medical Practice Full thread in detail: https://x.com/OpenlifesciAI/status/1867999825721242101

Showing 841-864 of 1340 resources in category: reddit