<story><title>What Meta learned from Galactica, the doomed model</title><url>https://venturebeat.com/ai/what-meta-learned-from-galactica-the-doomed-model-launched-two-weeks-before-chatgpt/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>janalsncm</author><text>I think the reason is because expectations were different. ChatGPT was released to the general public for general use. Galactica was really only noticed by the egg head press and egg head professionals (like myself) who rightly identified the failure of these statistical language models to have a grounding in facts. People whose job it is to notice details are going to push your model to the limit.&lt;p&gt;But it’s not like ChatGPT was better. If I recall, RLHF actually made hallucinations slightly worse. Even today OpenAI wouldn’t claim to be able to accurately summarize papers. It’s just that there was an endless supply of “write X in the style of Y” that was like catnip for journalists and kept them busy for months.</text></comment>
<story><title>What Meta learned from Galactica, the doomed model</title><url>https://venturebeat.com/ai/what-meta-learned-from-galactica-the-doomed-model-launched-two-weeks-before-chatgpt/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>MenhirMike</author><text>Rookie mistake, it should have been named Galactus. Though of course, even though Galactus has omniscience, it doesn&amp;#x27;t have futuresight, so perhaps it would still have been doomed.</text></comment>