Connect with us

Noticias

Let’s Start Thinking Of Breathtaking Ways To Leverage Generative AI Far Beyond What We Are Doing Right Now

Published

on

In today’s column, I explore the rising vocal clamor that we are woefully underutilizing generative AI and large language models or LLMs.

This might come as quite a surprise since the use of generative AI seems to be just about everywhere and continues to rapidly expand. There are reportedly 250 million weekly active users of OpenAI ChatGPT and undoubtedly hundreds of millions or into the billions more users of AI when including the likes of Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Meta Llama, and other major generative AI apps.

But the rub is this.

It’s not how many people are using generative AI, it’s the way in which generative AI has been set up to be used.

The primary approach that nearly everyone uses is that generative AI takes in essay-like text and produces text-based responses, or possibly images and video. That is the norm. Generative AI and large language models are data trained on patterns in human language and the way that humans write.

Maybe we should be identifying something else to pattern on. Perhaps we can reach far beyond just everyday natural language. The sky is the limit, or shall we say limitless.

Does that catch your attention and offer some intrigue?

Let’s talk about it.

This analysis of an innovative proposition is part of my ongoing Forbes.com column coverage on the latest in AI including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here).

The Push To Go Outside The Box

A modern-day luminary in the AI field named Andrej Karpathy began quite an online conversation and debate when he posted a tweet on X that said this (posting on September 14, 2024, per @karpathy):

  • “It’s a bit sad and confusing that LLMs (‘Large Language Models’) have little to do with language; It’s just historical. They are highly general-purpose technology for statistical modeling of token streams. A better name would be Autoregressive Transformers or something. They don’t care if the tokens happen to represent little text chunks. It could just as well be little image patches, audio chunks, action choices, molecules, or whatever. If you can reduce your problem to that of modeling token streams (for any arbitrary vocabulary of some set of discrete tokens), you can ‘throw an LLM at it’.
  • “Actually, as the LLM stack becomes more and more mature, we may see a convergence of a large number of problems into this modeling paradigm. That is, the problem is fixed at that of ‘next token prediction’ with an LLM, it’s just the usage/meaning of the tokens that changes per domain. If that is the case, it’s also possible that deep learning frameworks (e.g. PyTorch and friends) are way too general for what most problems want to look like over time. What’s up with thousands of ops and layers that you can reconfigure arbitrarily if 80% of problems just want to use an LLM? I don’t think this is true, but I think it’s half true.”

I’d like to walk you through the underlying proposition.

You might want to grab a glass of fine wine and find a quiet spot to sit and mull over the significance of what this is all about.

Tokens And Pattern Matching Are The Key

Currently, when you enter a prompt into generative AI, the words that you input are converted into a numeric format referred to as tokens. For example, suppose the sentence was “The dog barked” and that we had beforehand assigned the number 23 to the word “The”, 51 to the word “dog” and 18 to “barked”. The tokenized version of the sentence “The dog barked” would be those numbers shown in the sequence of 23, 51, and 18.

Next, after that conversion from text to numbers, the numbers or tokens are then used within the generative AI to figure out what the output will be. A long series of computations are undertaken. At the tail end of the processing, and before you see any text output, the resultant numbers might consist of say 10, 48, 6, which let’s assume that 10 is for the word “Yes”, 48 is for the word “it” and 6 is for the word “did”. Thus, the output as a result of making use of the inputs 23, 51, and 18, gives us the numbers 10, 48, and 6, which is shown to you as “Yes it did”.

For a more detailed explanation of tokenization, see my discussion at the link here.

By and large, the premise of generative AI and large language models is that when someone enters a set of sequenced tokens (via text-based words), a response can be computed that will consist of some other set of sequenced tokens (which is then converted into text-based words). In my example, I entered the three sequenced words consisting of “The dog barked” and I got a response of three sequenced words saying, “Yes it did”. My sequence of words “The dog barked” was converted into numeric tokens, run through a gauntlet of mathematical and computational processes, and the result produced was numeric tokens that after conversion into text-based words was “Yes it did.”

How does the AI calculate the words or tokens that form the response?

The general principle is that by doing extensive data training on how humans write, it is feasible to figure out how to take in tokens and generate or produce tokens that fit to the patterns of human writing. Usually, this data training is undertaken by scanning vast amounts of text found on the Internet, including essays, stories, narratives, poems, and so on. It turns out that humans make use of patterns in how they write, and the pattern-matching can pretty much pick up on those patterns.

That’s why generative AI seems fluent. It is computationally mimicking human writing. This requires a lot of examples of human writing to identify those patterns. I’ve discussed that some worry we won’t be able to make dramatic advances in generative AI because there might not be enough available human writing to pattern on, see my analysis at the link here.

Lean Into Pattern Matching As The Crux

It is time to think outside the box.

Are you ready?

Set aside the natural language aspects. Put that at the edge of your thinking. Don’t let it cloud your judgment.

What we really have going on is a kind of statistical predictor that can take in a set of tokens and produce as output a set of other tokens. Within the computational pattern matching is a type of mapping from what happens when some sequence of tokens is encountered and what ought to be predicted as the next tokens to come out.

The existing perspective is that this is useful for natural languages such as English, German, French, etc. Indeed, generative AI is customarily based on and referred to as large language models or LLMs. Why? Because the computational pattern matching is focused on natural languages, forming a model of what our everyday languages entail. After several initial years of trying this, AI researchers realized that you need lots of data to do proficient pattern matching and modeling. In the early days of generative AI, the models weren’t very good, partially due to a lack of scaling up.

At a macroscopic level, assume we need three crucial elements for our predictor mechanism:

  • (1) Something that we can convert into tokens.
  • (2) There is some pattern associated with inputs to outputs.
  • (3) We have enough of the material to sufficiently pattern on.

If any of those assumed elements are unavailable or don’t exist, we are somewhat up a creek without a paddle. Allow me to elaborate on each of the three and why they are respectively vital.

It could be that we cannot convert into tokens whatever it is that we want to use. That’s a problem. We won’t be able to use our prediction models that are based on tokens (as an aside, we could potentially devise models that use something other than tokens).

Another sour possibility is that there aren’t any patterns to be found within the arrangement of the tokens. If there aren’t any patterns, the model can’t make useful predictions. It could be that the patterns are so hard to find that our existing pattern-identifying techniques won’t crack open the secret sauce. It could also be that there just aren’t any patterns at all, period, end of story.

Finally, the likelihood of finding patterns and reliably making predictions is often based on having lots and lots of whatever it is that we are trying to pattern on. If all you have is a drop in the bucket, the odds are it won’t be enough to garner a big picture. Things will be askew.

Throwing The Amazing Predictor At Whatever Works

Okay, now that we have those three elements in mind, we need to start finding new avenues worth venturing into.

I want you to take a moment and put your mind to hard work:

  • The Big Question — What else is there other than natural language that provides a source of something that can be converted into tokens, contains patterns, and that we have sufficient volume of the thing that we can reasonably pattern match on it?

And, of course, of which we would want an AI system to be able to process for us.

There must be a buck to be made or some justifiable reason why we would go to the trouble to toss AI at it. I suppose you might do it for kicks but given the cost of churning out this type of AI, there should be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, one way or another.

Thinking, thinking, thinking.

Keep your thinking cap on and your mind activated.

You already know that we can do this with natural languages in terms of taking as input text and producing as output some associated text. The same can be said about audio. Generative AI is being used already to take as input audio, convert it into tokens, identify patterns based on available large volumes of audio, and produce audio outputs. Likewise, video is yet another mode, though the video is a lot harder to deal with than text or audio. See my coverage of multi-modal generative AI at the link here.

I’m sure that you know that coding or programming is already under the microscope for generative AI and LLMs. This is an interesting angle because though coding is text-based, it is not quite a natural language per se. You could argue that coding is an artificial language and not a conventional natural language. The beauty though is that it can be converted into tokens, patterns can be identified, and there is a lot of code out there to data train for pattern matching purposes.

Sorry that I keep telling you about possibilities that are already known or taken. That is though good to know about so that you aren’t trying to reinvent the wheel.

Ideas Being Early Days Floated

I will share with you some additional possibilities that are generally underway but still in the early stages of exploration:

  • Game playing. You can use the same precepts to get AI to play games. Moves are actions that can be described and converted into tokens. Patterns can be identified. By collecting lots of games being played, data is plentiful.
  • Stock market predictions. Consider stock prices as potential tokens. If you want to include other factors, such as the status of the economy, those can be similarly tokenized. Patterns can be presumably found and lots of data is available.
  • Molecular structure predictions. Take the shapes or structures of molecules and convert them into tokens. There are patterns to be found. Lots of data is available.
  • Route optimizations. Routing of traffic is essential and currently tends to be solved via symbolic or traditional mathematical means. The traffic parameters could be tokenized, patterns figured out, and lots of such data would be available for this.

Those are paths that are seriously being pursued. You are encouraged to jump in and help out. They are still cooking those meals, and the results are not yet finalized. There is ample room to make progress.

Okay, your homework is this.

Think about fields of one kind or another that may have not yet been explored for applying a generative AI or LLM-like capability. If you happen to be a domain expert in that field, you have a leg-up on this. I say that because you hopefully already know whether there are patterns afoot, you know why using AI for predictions would be valuable in that arena, and you possibly know if or where data can be found.

An added twist is this.

If there aren’t known patterns, you might be onto something especially enriching. Here’s the deal. If no one has yet found patterns, it could be that they just haven’t looked the right way. Prior efforts to find patterns might not have had the kind of computational power and pattern matching that we have with contemporary generative AI and LLMs.

The domain might be a sleeper. It is waiting for the right person to have the right vision. The heretofore unknown patterns could be unlocked via the right use of generative AI and LLMs or similar technology. I assure you that if that were the case, you might be in line for big bucks, big fame, and maybe even one of those vaunted Nobel prizes.

Isn’t that worth taking some dedicated time and attention to think about?

Yes, I would certainly say so, and I wish you the best of luck and urge you to get cracking. You can do it.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *

Noticias

Apocalipsis Biosciencias para desarrollar Géminis para la infección en pacientes con quemaduras graves

Published

on

– Esta nueva indicación es otro paso para desbloquear todo el potencial de la plataforma Gemini –

San Diego-(Business Wire)-$ Revb #GÉMINISApocalipsis Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: RevB) (la “empresa” o “revelación”), una compañía de ciencias de la vida de etapas clínicas que se centra en reequilibrar la inflamación para optimizar la salud, anunció una nueva indicación de objetivo para Géminis para la prevención de la infección en pacientes con quemaduras graves que requieren hospitalización (el Gema-PBI programa). El uso de Géminis para la prevención de la infección en pacientes con quemaduras severas, así como la prevención de la infección después de la cirugía (el Gema-PSI programa) son parte de la revelación familiar de patentes anteriormente con licencia de la Universidad de Vanderbilt.


“Estamos muy contentos de colaborar con el equipo de Apocalipsis para el avance de Géminis para la prevención de la infección en esta población de pacientes desatendida”, dijo Dra. Julia BohannonProfesor Asociado, Departamento de Anestesiología, Departamento de Patología, Microbiología e Inmunología, Universidad de Vanderbilt. “Creemos que la actividad de biomarcador clínico observada con Gemini se correlaciona fuertemente con nuestra experiencia preclínica en modelos de quemaduras de infecciones”.

El equipo de investigación de Vanderbilt demostrado El tratamiento posterior a la quemadura reduce significativamente la gravedad y la duración de la infección pulmonar de Pseudomonas, así como un nivel general reducido de inflamación en un modelo preclínico.

“La prevención de la infección en pacientes severamente quemados es un esfuerzo importante y complementa que la revelación laboral ha completado hasta la fecha”, dijo “, dijo”, dijo James RolkeCEO de Revelation “El programa Gemini-PBI puede ofrecer varias oportunidades regulatorias, de desarrollo y financiación que la compañía planea explorar”.

Sobre quemaduras e infección después de quemar

Las quemaduras son lesiones en la piel que involucran las dos capas principales: la epidermis externa delgada y/o la dermis más gruesa y profunda. Las quemaduras pueden ser el resultado de una variedad de causas que incluyen fuego, líquidos calientes, productos químicos (como ácidos fuertes o bases fuertes), electricidad, vapor, radiación de radiografías o radioterapia, luz solar o luz ultravioleta. Cada año, aproximadamente medio millón de estadounidenses sufren lesiones por quemaduras que requieren intervención médica. Si bien la mayoría de las lesiones por quemaduras no requieren ingreso a un hospital, se admiten alrededor de 40,000 pacientes, y aproximadamente 30,000 de ellos necesitan tratamiento especializado en un centro de quemaduras certificadas.

El número total anual de muertes relacionadas con quemaduras es de aproximadamente 3.400, siendo la infección invasiva la razón principal de la muerte después de las primeras 24 horas. La tasa de mortalidad general para pacientes con quemaduras graves es de aproximadamente 3.3%, pero esto aumenta al 20.6% en pacientes con quemaduras con lesión cutánea de quemaduras y inhalación, versus 10.5% por lesión por inhalación solo. La infección invasiva, incluida la sepsis, es la causa principal de la muerte después de la lesión por quemaduras, lo que representa aproximadamente el 51% de las muertes.

Actualmente no hay tratamientos aprobados para prevenir la infección sistémica en pacientes con quemaduras.

Sobre Géminis

Géminis es una formulación propietaria y propietaria de disacárido hexaacil fosforilada (PHAD (PHAD®) que reduce el daño asociado con la inflamación al reprogramarse del sistema inmune innato para responder al estrés (trauma, infección, etc.) de manera atenuada. La revelación ha realizado múltiples estudios preclínicos que demuestran el potencial terapéutico de Géminis en las indicaciones objetivo. Revelación anunciado previamente Datos clínicos positivos de fase 1 para el tratamiento intravenoso con Géminis. El punto final de seguridad primario se cumplió en el estudio de fase 1, y los resultados demostraron la actividad farmacodinámica estadísticamente significativa como se observó a través de los cambios esperados en múltiples biomarcadores, incluida la regulación positiva de IL-10.

Géminis se está desarrollando para múltiples indicaciones, incluso como pretratamiento para prevenir o reducir la gravedad y la duración de la lesión renal aguda (programa Gemini-AKI), y como pretratamiento para prevenir o reducir la gravedad y la duración de la infección posquirúrgica (programa GEMINI-PSI). Además, Gemini puede ser un tratamiento para detener o retrasar la progresión de la enfermedad renal crónica (programa Gemini-CKD).

Acerca de Apocalipsis Biosciences, Inc.

Revelation Biosciences, Inc. es una compañía de ciencias de la vida en estadio clínico centrada en aprovechar el poder de la inmunidad entrenada para la prevención y el tratamiento de la enfermedad utilizando su formulación patentada Géminis. Revelation tiene múltiples programas en curso para evaluar Géminis, incluso como prevención de la infección posquirúrgica, como prevención de lesiones renales agudas y para el tratamiento de la enfermedad renal crónica.

Para obtener más información sobre Apocalipsis, visite www.revbiosciences.com.

Declaraciones con avance

Este comunicado de prensa contiene declaraciones prospectivas definidas en la Ley de Reforma de Litigios de Valores Privados de 1995, según enmendada. Las declaraciones prospectivas son declaraciones que no son hechos históricos. Estas declaraciones prospectivas generalmente se identifican por las palabras “anticipar”, “creer”, “esperar”, “estimar”, “plan”, “perspectiva” y “proyecto” y otras expresiones similares. Advirtemos a los inversores que las declaraciones prospectivas se basan en las expectativas de la gerencia y son solo predicciones o declaraciones de las expectativas actuales e involucran riesgos, incertidumbres y otros factores conocidos y desconocidos que pueden hacer que los resultados reales sean materialmente diferentes de los previstos por las declaraciones de prospección. Apocalipsis advierte a los lectores que no depositen una dependencia indebida de tales declaraciones de vista hacia adelante, que solo hablan a partir de la fecha en que se hicieron. Los siguientes factores, entre otros, podrían hacer que los resultados reales difieran materialmente de los descritos en estas declaraciones prospectivas: la capacidad de la revelación para cumplir con sus objetivos financieros y estratégicos, debido a, entre otras cosas, la competencia; la capacidad de la revelación para crecer y gestionar la rentabilidad del crecimiento y retener a sus empleados clave; la posibilidad de que la revelación pueda verse afectada negativamente por otros factores económicos, comerciales y/o competitivos; riesgos relacionados con el desarrollo exitoso de los candidatos de productos de Apocalipsis; la capacidad de completar con éxito los estudios clínicos planificados de sus candidatos de productos; El riesgo de que no podamos inscribir completamente nuestros estudios clínicos o la inscripción llevará más tiempo de lo esperado; riesgos relacionados con la aparición de eventos de seguridad adversos y/o preocupaciones inesperadas que pueden surgir de los datos o análisis de nuestros estudios clínicos; cambios en las leyes o regulaciones aplicables; Iniciación esperada de los estudios clínicos, el momento de los datos clínicos; El resultado de los datos clínicos, incluido si los resultados de dicho estudio son positivos o si se puede replicar; El resultado de los datos recopilados, incluido si los resultados de dichos datos y/o correlación se pueden replicar; el momento, los costos, la conducta y el resultado de nuestros otros estudios clínicos; El tratamiento anticipado de datos clínicos futuros por parte de la FDA, la EMA u otras autoridades reguladoras, incluidos si dichos datos serán suficientes para su aprobación; el éxito de futuras actividades de desarrollo para sus candidatos de productos; posibles indicaciones para las cuales se pueden desarrollar candidatos de productos; la capacidad de revelación para mantener la lista de sus valores en NASDAQ; la duración esperada sobre la cual los saldos de Apocalipsis financiarán sus operaciones; y otros riesgos e incertidumbres descritos en este documento, así como aquellos riesgos e incertidumbres discutidos de vez en cuando en otros informes y otras presentaciones públicas con la SEC por Apocalipsis.

Contactos

Mike Porter

Relaciones con inversores

Porter Levay & Rose Inc.

Correo electrónico: mike@plrinvest.com

Chester Zygmont, III

Director financiero
Apocalipsis Biosciences Inc.

Correo electrónico: czygmont@revbiosciences.com

Continue Reading

Noticias

Why Google’s search engine trial is about AI : NPR

Published

on

An illustration photograph taken on Feb. 20, 2025 shows Grok, DeepSeek and ChatGPT apps displayed on a phone screen. The Justice Department’s 2020 complaint against Google has few mentions of artificial intelligence or AI chatbots. But nearly five years later, as the remedy phase of the trial enters its second week of testimony, the focus has shifted to AI.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

When the U.S. Department of Justice originally broughtand then won — its case against Google, arguing that the tech behemoth monopolized the search engine market, the focus was on, well … search.

Back then, in 2020, the government’s antitrust complaint against Google had few mentions of artificial intelligence or AI chatbots. But nearly five years later, as the remedy phase of the trial enters its second week of testimony, the focus has shifted to AI, underscoring just how quickly this emerging technology has expanded.

In the past few days, before a federal judge who will assess penalties against Google, the DOJ has argued that the company could use its artificial intelligence products to strengthen its monopoly in online search — and to use the data from its powerful search index to become the dominant player in AI.

In his opening statements last Monday, David Dahlquist, the acting deputy director of the DOJ’s antitrust civil litigation division, argued that the court should consider remedies that could nip a potential Google AI monopoly in the bud. “This court’s remedy should be forward-looking and not ignore what is on the horizon,” he said.

Dahlquist argued that Google has created a system in which its control of search helps improve its AI products, sending more users back to Google search — creating a cycle that maintains the tech company’s dominance and blocks competitors out of both marketplaces.

The integration of search and Gemini, the company’s AI chatbot — which the DOJ sees as powerful fuel for this cycle — is a big focus of the government’s proposed remedies. The DOJ is arguing that to be most effective, those remedies must address all ways users access Google search, so any penalties approved by the court that don’t include Gemini (or other Google AI products now or in the future) would undermine their broader efforts.

Department of Justice lawyer David Dahlquist leaves the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse on Sept. 20, 2023 during the original trial phase of the antitrust case against Google.

Department of Justice lawyer David Dahlquist leaves the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse on Sept. 20, 2023 during the original trial phase of the antitrust case against Google.

Jose Luis Magana/AP/FR159526 AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Jose Luis Magana/AP/FR159526 AP

AI and search are connected like this: Search engine indices are essentially giant databases of pages and information on the web. Google has its own such index, which contains hundreds of billions of webpages and is over 100,000,000 gigabytes, according to court documents. This is the data Google’s search engine scans when responding to a user’s query.

AI developers use these kinds of databases to build and train the models used to power chatbots. In court, attorneys for the DOJ have argued that Google’s Gemini pulls information from the company’s search index, including citing search links and results, extending what they say is a self-serving cycle. They argue that Google’s ability to monopolize the search market gives it user data, at a huge scale — an advantage over other AI developers.

The Justice Department argues Google’s monopoly over search could have a direct effect on the development of generative AI, a type of artificial intelligence that uses existing data to create new content like text, videos or photos, based on a user’s prompts or questions. Last week, the government called executives from several major AI companies, like OpenAI and Perplexity, in an attempt to argue that Google’s stranglehold on search is preventing some of those companies from truly growing.

The government argues that to level the playing field, Google should be forced to open its search data — like users’ search queries, clicks and results — and license it to other competitors at a cost.

This is on top of demands related to Google’s search engine business, most notably that it should be forced to sell off its Chrome browser.

Google flatly rejects the argument that it could monopolize the field of generative AI, saying competition in the AI race is healthy. In a recent blog post on Google’s website, Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’s vice president of regulatory affairs, wrote that since the federal judge first ruled against Google over a year ago, “AI has already rapidly reshaped the industry, with new entrants and new ways of finding information, making it even more competitive.”

In court, Google’s lawyers have argued that there are a host of AI companies with chatbots — some of which are outperforming Gemini. OpenAI has ChatGPT, Meta has MetaAI and Perplexity has Perplexity AI.

“There is no shortage of competition in that market, and ChatGPT and Meta are way ahead of everybody in terms of the distribution and usage at this point,” said John E. Schmidtlein, a lawyer for Google, during his opening statement. “But don’t take my word for it. Look at the data. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of downloads by ChatGPT.”

Competing in a growing AI field

It should be no surprise that AI is coming up so much at this point in the trial, said Alissa Cooper, the executive director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, a nonpartisan tech research and policy center at Georgetown University focusing on AI, disinformation and data privacy.

“If you look at search as a product today, you can’t really think about search without thinking about AI,” she said. “I think the case is a really great opportunity to try to … analyze how Google has benefited specifically from the monopoly that it has in search, and ensure that the behavior that led to that can’t be used to gain an unfair advantage in these other markets which are more nascent.”

Having access to Google’s data, she said, “would provide them with the ability to build better chatbots, build better search engines, and potentially build other products that we haven’t even thought of.”

To make that point, the DOJ called Nick Turley, OpenAI’s head of product for ChatGPT, to the stand last Tuesday. During a long day of testimony, Turley detailed how without access to Google’s search index and data, engineers for the growing company tried to build their own.

ChatGPT, a large language model that can generate human-like responses, engage in conversations and perform tasks like explaining a tough-to-understand math lesson, was never intended to be a product for OpenAI, Turley said. But once it launched and went viral, the company found that people were using it for a host of needs.

Though popular, ChatGPT had its drawbacks, like the bot’s limited “knowledge,” Turley said. Early on, ChatGPT was not connected to the internet and could only use information that it had been fed up to a certain point in its training. For example, Turley said, if a user asked “Who is the president?” the program would give a 2022 answer — from when its “knowledge” effectively stopped.

OpenAI couldn’t build their own index fast enough to address their problems; they found that process incredibly expensive, time consuming and potentially years from coming to fruition, Turley said.

So instead, they sought a partnership with a third party search provider. At one point, OpenAI tried to make a deal with Google to gain access to their search, but Google declined, seeing OpenAI as a direct competitor, Turley testified.

But Google says companies like OpenAI are doing just fine without gaining access to the tech giant’s own technology — which it spent decades developing. These companies just want “handouts,” said Schmidtlein.

On the third day of the remedy trial, internal Google documents shared in court by the company’s lawyers compared how many people are using Gemini versus its competitors. According to those documents, ChatGPT and MetaAI are the two leaders, with Gemini coming in third.

They showed that this March, Gemini saw 35 million active daily users and 350 million monthly active users worldwide. That was up from 9 million daily active users in October 2024. But according to those documents, Gemini was still lagging behind ChatGPT, which reached 160 million daily users and around 600 million active users in March.

These numbers show that competitors have no need to use Google’s search data, valuable intellectual property that the tech giant spent decades building and maintaining, the company argues.

“The notion that somehow ChatGPT can’t get distribution is absurd,” Schmidtlein said in court last week. “They have more distribution than anyone.”

Google’s exclusive deals 

In his ruling last year, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said Google’s exclusive agreements with device makers, like Apple and Samsung, to make its search engine the default on those companies’ phones helped maintain its monopoly. It remains a core issue for this remedy trial.

Now, the DOJ is arguing that Google’s deals with device manufacturers are also directly affecting AI companies and AI tech.

In court, the DOJ argued that Google has replicated this kind of distribution deal by agreeing to pay Samsung what Dahlquist called a monthly “enormous sum” for Gemini to be installed on smartphones and other devices.

Last Wednesday, the DOJ also called Dmitry Shevelenko, Perplexity’s chief business officer, to testify that Google has effectively cut his company out from making deals with manufacturers and mobile carriers.

Perplexity AIs not preloaded on any mobile devices in the U.S., despite many efforts to get phone companies to establish Perplexity as a default or exclusive app on devices, Shevelenko said. He compared Google’s control in that space to that of a “mob boss.”

But Google’s attorney, Christopher Yeager, noted in questioning Shevelenko that Perplexity has reached a valuation of over $9 billion — insinuating the company is doing just fine in the marketplace.

Despite testifying in court (for which he was subpoenaed, Shevelenko noted), he and other leaders at Perplexity are against the breakup of Google. In a statement on the company’s website, the Perplexity team wrote that neither forcing Google to sell off Chrome nor to license search data to its competitors are the best solutions. “Neither of these address the root issue: consumers deserve choice,” they wrote.

Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai departs federal court after testifying in October 2023 in Washington, DC. Pichai testified to defend his company in the original antitrust trial. Pichai is expected to testify again during the remedy phase of the legal proceedings.

Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai departs federal court after testifying in October 2023 in Washington, DC. Pichai testified to defend his company in the original antitrust trial. Pichai is expected to testify again during the remedy phase of the legal proceedings.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Drew Angerer/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

What to expect next

This week the trial continues, with the DOJ calling its final witnesses this morning to testify about the feasibility of a Chrome divestiture and how the government’s proposed remedies would help rivals compete. On Tuesday afternoon, Google will begin presenting its case, which is expected to feature the testimony of CEO Sundar Pichai, although the date of his appearance has not been specified.

Closing arguments are expected at the end of May, and then Mehta will make his ruling. Google says once this phase is settled the company will appeal Mehta’s ruling in the underlying case.

Whatever Mehta decides in this remedy phase, Cooper thinks it will have effects beyond just the business of search engines. No matter what it is, she said, “it will be having some kind of impact on AI.”

Google is a financial supporter of NPR.

Continue Reading

Noticias

API de Meta Oleleshes Llama que se ejecuta 18 veces más rápido que OpenAI: Cerebras Partnership ofrece 2.600 tokens por segundo

Published

on

Únase a nuestros boletines diarios y semanales para obtener las últimas actualizaciones y contenido exclusivo sobre la cobertura de IA líder de la industria. Obtenga más información


Meta anunció hoy una asociación con Cerebras Systems para alimentar su nueva API de LLAMA, ofreciendo a los desarrolladores acceso a velocidades de inferencia hasta 18 veces más rápido que las soluciones tradicionales basadas en GPU.

El anuncio, realizado en la Conferencia inaugural de desarrolladores de Llamacon de Meta en Menlo Park, posiciona a la compañía para competir directamente con Operai, Anthrope y Google en el mercado de servicios de inferencia de IA en rápido crecimiento, donde los desarrolladores compran tokens por miles de millones para impulsar sus aplicaciones.

“Meta ha seleccionado a Cerebras para colaborar para ofrecer la inferencia ultra rápida que necesitan para servir a los desarrolladores a través de su nueva API de LLAMA”, dijo Julie Shin Choi, directora de marketing de Cerebras, durante una sesión de prensa. “En Cerebras estamos muy, muy emocionados de anunciar nuestra primera asociación HyperScaler CSP para ofrecer una inferencia ultra rápida a todos los desarrolladores”.

La asociación marca la entrada formal de Meta en el negocio de la venta de AI Computation, transformando sus populares modelos de llama de código abierto en un servicio comercial. Si bien los modelos de LLAMA de Meta se han acumulado en mil millones de descargas, hasta ahora la compañía no había ofrecido una infraestructura en la nube de primera parte para que los desarrolladores creen aplicaciones con ellos.

“Esto es muy emocionante, incluso sin hablar sobre cerebras específicamente”, dijo James Wang, un ejecutivo senior de Cerebras. “Openai, Anthrope, Google: han construido un nuevo negocio de IA completamente nuevo desde cero, que es el negocio de inferencia de IA. Los desarrolladores que están construyendo aplicaciones de IA comprarán tokens por millones, a veces por miles de millones. Y estas son como las nuevas instrucciones de cómputo que las personas necesitan para construir aplicaciones AI”.

Una tabla de referencia muestra a Cerebras Processing Llama 4 a 2,648 tokens por segundo, superando drásticamente a los competidores Sambanova (747), Groq (600) y servicios basados ​​en GPU de Google y otros, explicando la elección de hardware de Meta para su nueva API. (Crédito: Cerebras)

Breaking the Speed ​​Barrier: Cómo modelos de Llama de Cerebras Supercharges

Lo que distingue a la oferta de Meta es el aumento de la velocidad dramática proporcionado por los chips de IA especializados de Cerebras. El sistema de cerebras ofrece más de 2.600 fichas por segundo para Llama 4 Scout, en comparación con aproximadamente 130 tokens por segundo para ChatGPT y alrededor de 25 tokens por segundo para Deepseek, según puntos de referencia del análisis artificial.

“Si solo se compara con API a API, Gemini y GPT, todos son grandes modelos, pero todos se ejecutan a velocidades de GPU, que son aproximadamente 100 tokens por segundo”, explicó Wang. “Y 100 tokens por segundo están bien para el chat, pero es muy lento para el razonamiento. Es muy lento para los agentes. Y la gente está luchando con eso hoy”.

Esta ventaja de velocidad permite categorías completamente nuevas de aplicaciones que antes no eran prácticas, incluidos los agentes en tiempo real, los sistemas de voz de baja latencia conversacional, la generación de código interactivo y el razonamiento instantáneo de múltiples pasos, todos los cuales requieren encadenamiento de múltiples llamadas de modelo de lenguaje grandes que ahora se pueden completar en segundos en lugar de minutos.

La API de LLAMA representa un cambio significativo en la estrategia de IA de Meta, en la transición de ser un proveedor de modelos a convertirse en una compañía de infraestructura de IA de servicio completo. Al ofrecer un servicio API, Meta está creando un flujo de ingresos a partir de sus inversiones de IA mientras mantiene su compromiso de abrir modelos.

“Meta ahora está en el negocio de vender tokens, y es excelente para el tipo de ecosistema de IA estadounidense”, señaló Wang durante la conferencia de prensa. “Traen mucho a la mesa”.

La API ofrecerá herramientas para el ajuste y la evaluación, comenzando con el modelo LLAMA 3.3 8B, permitiendo a los desarrolladores generar datos, entrenar y probar la calidad de sus modelos personalizados. Meta enfatiza que no utilizará datos de clientes para capacitar a sus propios modelos, y los modelos construidos con la API de LLAMA se pueden transferir a otros hosts, una clara diferenciación de los enfoques más cerrados de algunos competidores.

Las cerebras alimentarán el nuevo servicio de Meta a través de su red de centros de datos ubicados en toda América del Norte, incluidas las instalaciones en Dallas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Montreal y California.

“Todos nuestros centros de datos que sirven a la inferencia están en América del Norte en este momento”, explicó Choi. “Serviremos Meta con toda la capacidad de las cerebras. La carga de trabajo se equilibrará en todos estos diferentes centros de datos”.

El arreglo comercial sigue lo que Choi describió como “el proveedor de cómputo clásico para un modelo hiperscalador”, similar a la forma en que NVIDIA proporciona hardware a los principales proveedores de la nube. “Están reservando bloques de nuestro cómputo para que puedan servir a su población de desarrolladores”, dijo.

Más allá de las cerebras, Meta también ha anunciado una asociación con Groq para proporcionar opciones de inferencia rápida, brindando a los desarrolladores múltiples alternativas de alto rendimiento más allá de la inferencia tradicional basada en GPU.

La entrada de Meta en el mercado de API de inferencia con métricas de rendimiento superiores podría potencialmente alterar el orden establecido dominado por Operai, Google y Anthrope. Al combinar la popularidad de sus modelos de código abierto con capacidades de inferencia dramáticamente más rápidas, Meta se está posicionando como un competidor formidable en el espacio comercial de IA.

“Meta está en una posición única con 3 mil millones de usuarios, centros de datos de hiper escala y un gran ecosistema de desarrolladores”, según los materiales de presentación de Cerebras. La integración de la tecnología de cerebras “ayuda a Meta Leapfrog OpenAi y Google en rendimiento en aproximadamente 20X”.

Para las cerebras, esta asociación representa un hito importante y la validación de su enfoque especializado de hardware de IA. “Hemos estado construyendo este motor a escala de obleas durante años, y siempre supimos que la primera tarifa de la tecnología, pero en última instancia tiene que terminar como parte de la nube de hiperescala de otra persona. Ese fue el objetivo final desde una perspectiva de estrategia comercial, y finalmente hemos alcanzado ese hito”, dijo Wang.

La API de LLAMA está actualmente disponible como una vista previa limitada, con Meta planifica un despliegue más amplio en las próximas semanas y meses. Los desarrolladores interesados ​​en acceder a la inferencia Ultra-Fast Llama 4 pueden solicitar el acceso temprano seleccionando cerebras de las opciones del modelo dentro de la API de LLAMA.

“Si te imaginas a un desarrollador que no sabe nada sobre cerebras porque somos una empresa relativamente pequeña, solo pueden hacer clic en dos botones en el SDK estándar de SDK estándar de Meta, generar una tecla API, seleccionar la bandera de cerebras y luego, de repente, sus tokens se procesan en un motor gigante a escala de dafers”, explicó las cejas. “Ese tipo de hacernos estar en el back -end del ecosistema de desarrolladores de Meta todo el ecosistema es tremendo para nosotros”.

La elección de Meta de silicio especializada señala algo profundo: en la siguiente fase de la IA, no es solo lo que saben sus modelos, sino lo rápido que pueden pensarlo. En ese futuro, la velocidad no es solo una característica, es todo el punto.

Continue Reading

Trending