<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>devjab</author><text>Maybe I’m not understanding the article correctly, but what was the lesson? That Facebook should have told people it would lie, similar to how OpenAI did?&lt;p&gt;I’m actually interested in what the internal lessons for Facebook would’ve been to see their product so replaced by a similar product only two weeks later, but unless I’m misunderstanding everything, the article doesn’t really seem to touch in it. At least not beyond the fact that people still want the model, and, that it’s part of llama and Facebooks new push for more open models.</text></comment>