Good morning. Next week I will be taking a vacation with my family. There will be no updates or articles on Shitekri. There will be one episode of Sharp Tech, send questions to email sharptech.fm, and one episode of Dithering. After tomorrow's interview I will be back on Monday, April 10.
Meanwhile, last week's episode of Sharp China covered the She Putin Summit in Moscow, in the TikTok hearing in Washington DC. Do note that there may be a slightly reduced frequency in Sharp Tech, Sharp China, in greatest Valtalk episodes in April, as Andrew Sharp is welcoming a new baby into the world any day now. As always, thank you for your support of Shitekri Plus.
On to the update, Reput in Google, from Bloomberg. Microsoft Corpse GitHub Unit created one of the first widely deployed programs using OpenAI's language generation tools, an app called Copilot that helps software developers write computer code.
Now GitHub is adding a chat and voice feature that will let programmers ask how to accomplish certain coding tasks. The new version announced Wednesday is called Copilot X, which GitHub Chief Executive Officer Tomas Domke said he demonstrated to one of his children by asking it how to program a snake game in Python. The chat window can provide explanations of what segments of code are meant to do, create ways to test the code, and propose fixes for bugs. This can also give instructions or ask questions using their voice.
GitHub Copilot was, until the release of chat's APT, the most widely used AI products in the world. Microsoft claimed that 46% of the code written in its integrated developer environments, IDE's, was provided by Copilot. I've also heard, for what it's worth, a lot of anecdotal evidence of developing Copilot much more than they ever expected, including a few I know who switched to Microsoft IDE's just to use Copilot. Copilot was based on GPT-3 and was first announced in 2021.
Copilot X updates the Copilot to GPT-4 and adds the aforementioned chat and voice tools, although these are not yet available for broad use. This is all important context for yesterday's news from Repplet and Google, from Bloomberg. Alphabet Inc's Google is striking a partnership to combine its artificial intelligence language models with software from startup Repplet Inc that helps computer programmers write code, a bid to compete with a similar product from Microsoft Corp's GitHub and Open AI.
Copilot X 更新了 Copilot 到 GPT-4,并添加了上述的聊天和语音工具,虽然这些工具尚未成为广泛使用的选择。这是昨天来自 Bloomberg 的 Repplet 和 Google 新闻的重要背景资料。Alphabet 公司的 Google 正在与初创公司 Repplet Inc 达成合作伙伴关系,将其人工智能语言模型与软件相结合,帮助计算机程序员编写代码,以与 Microsoft Corp 的 GitHub 和 Open AI 提供的类似产品竞争。
Repplet, which is 20 million users, said its Ghostwriter app will rely on Google's language generation AI to improve its ability to suggest blocks of code, complete programs, and answer developer questions. Google Cloud Vice President, June Yang, declined to specify which language AI products Repplet will use, noting that it's a customized combination of systems that address different tasks like chat and code generation. Previously, Repplet built the product with its own AI.
Google, quote, has much better technology than most people know, and quote, Repplet Chief Executive Officer Amjad Masad said in an interview. The startup will also expand its use of Google's cloud services and hopes the relationship with the tech giant will help it win over large corporate customers. Right now Repplet's clients are largely individual developers and startups. Google will also distribute Repplet software as part of the partnership.
I interviewed Repplet founder and CEO Amjad Masad last year. Shortly after the startup announced Ghostwriter AI, here is what he said when I asked him about its underpinnings.
去年,我采访了 Repplet 的创始人兼 CEO Amjad Masad。不久之后,该创业公司宣布了 Ghostwriter AI,当我问他这个产品的基础是什么时,他这样回答。
So GPT2 came out, start saying, okay, this is probably going to enable the technology GPT2 came out. I mean, we'll start writing software for it. And then we started building on GPT3. We released the explain code before clope island, before anyone else. We released a bunch of experiments on OpenAI. The unfortunately, the pricing model of OpenAI just didn't make sense for us.
The other thing is like we are a company that knows how to optimize compute. And we are a company that knows how to, you know, we have at any given point, one million and container running continuously, it makes us like one of the bigger clouds of the world, actually. And so it just didn't make sense for us to build on OpenAI because we could control latency. We could get uptime because it's a great company. We love that we're partnered with them. But at the end of the day, it just makes sense for us to build our own.
So with Ghostwriter, we started from an open source model and we applied a ton of optimization on it and a ton of additional training and work. And we built this really nice front end UX on top of it. And we're now close beta. We're going to open beta pretty soon. And then you'll be able to buy it as a power up on Repplet next month.
From what I understand, Repplet did still have components of Ghostwriter that were powered by OpenAI. But that only magnifies the issue Repplet faced in its goal to become an IDE that grows beyond new programmers in educational contexts. To be competitive with IDE like GitHub code spaces or Microsoft VS Code.
据我所了解,Repplet仍然有一些由OpenAI驱动的Ghostwriter组件。但这只是放大了Repplet在实现其超越教育背景下新手程序员的IDE目标所面临的问题。要与GitHub代码空间或Microsoft VS Code等IDE竞争。
First, it's queried on an AI code pilot and code is going to GitHub for the name. It's practically cleanx at this point. It's going to be an essential component of any IDE going forward. Repplet is interesting because it is cloud first, with all the benefits and drawbacks that entails. But apps in a compelling AI assistant will not only not be competitive for professional use cases but will also lose its appeal for new programmers.
Of course, Repplet understood this. This is why they built Ghostwriter. There is a big challenge though, in relying on open source foundation models and competition with Microsoft. First, while open source models are advancing quickly, they are still behind OpenAI's most cutting edge models. Second, it's a lot of work to incorporate them, that Repplet could better spend working on the IDE itself.
当然,Repplet 了解这一点。这就是他们构建 Ghostwriter 的原因。然而,有一个很大的挑战,就是依赖开源基础模型并与微软竞争。首先,尽管开源模型正在快速发展,但它们仍然落后于 OpenAI 最尖端的模型。其次,需要花费大量工作来整合它们,而 Repplet 可以更好地将时间花在 IDE 本身上。
Meanwhile, because of Microsoft's partnership with OpenAI, the company is definitely getting access to OpenAI's new models first. It has a direct feedback channel in terms of evolving those models for its users. And it has a huge price advantage to whatever parts of the OpenAI API that Repplet is using. Partnering with Google solves these problems.
Google's foundational models are widely thought to be competitive with OpenAI's. This is, to be fair, an open question, particularly given Bards Underwhelming Launch. And Google is responsible for advancing them. Repplet will have direct access to Google to provide feedback and ask for improvements for their use case. Repplet will likely have a much more favorable pricing deal with Google, especially if that manifests through other avenues like Google Cloud Credits for its customers, or Repplet itself, in addition to favorable API pricing.
谷歌的基础模型被广泛认为与 OpenAI 的模型竞争能力相当。说实话,这个问题还有待探讨,特别是考虑到 Bards 平淡的发布。而且,谷歌负责推进它们的发展。Repplet 将直接访问谷歌,以获得反馈并要求针对他们的用例进行改进。Repplet 很可能会获得与谷歌更有利的定价交易,特别是如果这通过其他途径来体现,例如为其客户提供 Google Cloud Credits,或者针对其 API 定价的优惠。
In short, OpenAI isn't Repplet's long-term competitor. Microsoft is. Microsoft, though, has the advantage in terms of relying on OpenAI directly, and now Repplet is attached to the company that is competing with OpenAI, at least in theory.
The Google perspective. With that in mind, the company this deal makes the most sense for its Google. First, monetizing its AI work through an API makes sense for Google, as it's not destructive to its search business model. Second, Google gets a major customer that can function as a showpiece for their capabilities. Third, it's clear that coding is one of the most important applications for AI today, but the best possible experience is going to come by integrating AI with an IDE, and Google doesn't have an IDE for general purpose use.
Now its AI is going to be incorporated in an already large and very rapidly growing one that is taking on Microsoft. As an aside, that Microsoft acquisition of GitHub is looking positively brilliant now. I wrote at the time that the deal was worth it just because it gave Microsoft the ability to win the hearts and minds of developers, which was more important than adding a few hooks to Azure or whatever. That has largely happened, and was helped along by Microsoft's massively successful and free VS Code IDE, but having a place to prove that AI is even more important.
Moreover, those Azure hooks are a lot more compelling now that Azure comes with OpenAI APIs. At that end, I wouldn't be surprised if this Google Repplet deal is itself a precursor to an acquisition. If GitHub went from a nice brand building acquisition for Microsoft to an essential part of their strategy going forward, then how can Google not respond, particularly given IDs are not simply a competition in their own right, but also the battleground for AI models generally, and the single most important place to acquire developers going forward.
Indeed, I would go further, the fact that Google did not buy Repplet and is instead choosing to partner with the startup, strikes me as another worrisome indicator that Google's leadership is lacking in boldness. Again, the single best application today of AI Interceptor Productivity is coding, and that means owning the IDE is essential, but Google is settling for a partnership instead.
Twitter's bad idea. I feel compelled to address this tweet. Elon Musk tweeted, starting April 15th, only verified accounts will be legible to be in four U-recommendations. This is the only realistic way to address advanced AI bot swarms taking over. It is otherwise a hopeless losing battle. Voting and pose will require verification for the same reason, to which James Lightbody replied, Ben Thompson called it, tending toward all paid.
I have admittedly proposed a lot of different solutions for Twitter over the years.
我得承认,这些年来我确实提出了很多不同的解决方案,以改善Twitter。
When Musk first bid for Twitter, I argued that the combination should be split in two. The Twitter service could monetize VNAPI and Twitter apps, including the official app, monetize however they wished, and thus cover the API fee.
I assumed that would entail ads for the official Twitter app and subscriptions for third-party apps.
我原以为这意味着官方Twitter应用的广告和第三方应用的订阅。
That noted, when Perag Agrawal took over Twitter a few months before that, I proposed that Twitter do a full subscription model, wherever one pays. I suspect that is what James Lightbody is referring to.
那么,在那之前几个月,Perag Agrawal 掌管 Twitter 的时候,我建议 Twitter 推出一种完全的订阅模式,也就是任何人都需要付费。我猜 James Lightbody 指的就是这个。
There is, though, a very important distinction between Musk's announcement in my proposal.
然而,在我的提议中,马斯克的宣布有一个非常重要的区别。
We are focusing on completely different groups of users. This monetization approach targets people who post. By definition, only people who post care if their tweets appear in the algorithmic timeline.
A subscription service for all, on the other hand, is by definition targeted at those who simply read.
另一方面,所有人都可以使用的订阅服务,基本上是针对那些只是阅读的人。
Keep in mind the Golden Rule Social Networks, which I articulated in this update about Musk's spot complaints. Quote, "one of the most famous rules of thumb about online communities is the 99.1 ratio. 90% of participants work, 9% comment, and 1% post."
These ratios, to be fair, were developed a few decades ago in the context of forums and wikis.
这些比率是公平的,几十年前在论坛和维基的背景下开发的。
One of the triumphs of platforms like Facebook and Twitter is how much easier they made it to post, comment, and interact. Still, it seems very reasonable to assume that there remain lots of Twitter users who consume tweets, or even like them, but never send a public tweet.
Moreover, it seems likely that bought accounts are more likely to send public tweets.
此外,似乎购买的账号更有可能发送公共推文。
That's kind of the point.
这是重点所在。
A punitive subscription offering that actually removes features only makes sense if it captures the entire Twitter user base, including those who don't post. There simply won't be enough revenue to make it worth it otherwise.
To go halfway, like this measure, actually makes the business worse.
采取这样的措施只走了一半路,实际上会使业务变得更糟。
One might not want to charge non-posters because they look at ads, but if they have a markedly worse experience, they are more likely to churn, and an algorithm timeline tuned to their interest ought to contribute to better ad targeting as well.
The fact of the matter is that as much as BUSK may dislike some of the loudest and most popular voices on Twitter, they are exactly right when they argue that they deliver more value to Twitter than Twitter could ever hope to gain from them via a target of subscription fee.
They are on the fact that Musk has managed to make a blue checkmark into a political signal.
他们对于马斯克设法将蓝色勾号转化成政治信号感到惊讶。
One he is only magnifying by making it explicit that anyone who shows up in the 4U feed is a subscriber, and Musk is basically dooming what ought to be the most compelling and engaging part of Twitter into an inevitable ghost town.
There are three possible business models for Twitter to pursue.
Twitter有三种可能的商业模式可供追求。
One, all free with a heavy focus on making the algorithm better to both keep people engaged and deliver better-targeted ads.
我们致力于让所有用户都可以免费使用,并且重点关注改进算法,从而保持用户的参与度并提供更精准的广告。
Two, mostly free, with a subscription add-on for extra features beyond the core user experience. Although this is probably the worst of the three, as the number of people who will subscribe will be small.
Three, all paid so that you collect subscription fees from everyone, making up for churn and diminished advertising.
我们三个人全都付了费用,这样你就可以收取所有人的订阅费,弥补客户流失和广告减少的损失。
This proposal is none of these. It makes Twitter worse for readers and tries to tax those who contribute the most value, all in the context of the blue checkmark being a political symbol.