Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 623 posts

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#561

Post by randomsearch »

gdb wrote: post #62
mattferderer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My "guess" is they're offering $1B worth of Azure services. Which costs MSFT probably much less than $1B. My "guess" is that it means MSFT has access to sell products based off the research OpenAI does to MSFT's customers. Having early access to advanced research means MSFT could easily make this money back by selling better AI tools to their customers. Also a great time to point out that while "Microsoft is not a ch…

> My "guess" is they're offering $1B worth of Azure services. Which costs MSFT probably much less than $1B. It's a cash investment. We certainly do plan to be a big Azure customer though. > My "guess" is that it means MSFT has access to sell products based off the research OpenAI does to MSFT's customers. Having early access to advanced research means MSFT could easily make this money back by selling better AI tools…

Just saw this post. Wow, that’s a big cash investment and certainly makes this very significant.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#562

Post by z3t4 »

throwawaywego wrote: post #406
z3t4 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The atomic bomb was based on science theory. A computer can run many programs and do a great many things, but it will never be able to think by itself.

> The atomic bomb was based on science theory. Our study of (automated) intelligence is based on science too. > A computer ... will never be able to think by itself. Turing wrote an entire paper about this (Computing Machinery and Intelligence), where he rephrases your statement (because he finds it to be meaningless) and devises a test to answer it. He also directly attacks your phrasing of "but it will never": > I…

Investing into a bubble only to make sure the money go to yourself. Seems like a economic loophole. You think computers will start to have dreams and desires? Abusing such a machine would be unethical. Go ahead and build a better OCR, just don't fall to the AGI hype.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#563

Post by hoseja »

marvin wrote: post #349
DSingularity wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually open ai?

I thought from day one that the name «OpenAI» would at best be a slight misnomer, and at worst indicative of a misguided approach. If AGI is close to being achieved, sharing key details of the approach to any actors at all could trigger a Manhattan Project-type global arms race where safety was compromised and the whole thing became insanely risky for the future of humanity. Glad to see that the team is taking a prag…

I wouldn't be so sure the Manhattan Project-type global arms race isn't already happening.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#564

Post by hoseja »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #522
jacques_chester wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people are not putting spoonfuls of beef in their coffee. Sugar is, quite literally, pure carbohydrates. Most sources of protein are not, unless you're consuming refined amino acids (pro tip: they taste awful ).

> Most people are not putting spoonfuls of beef in their coffee. That could be... interesting. It could be in the form of beef bullion, so you really could put in a spoonful. But I wonder if bacon would be better...

Brits have that, it's called Bovril.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#566

Post by simonh »

johnvanommen wrote: post #532
cosmodisk wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often think that if I were a billionaire,I'd rather spend hundreds of millions on some cool R&D projects rather than having some 100 meter boat that one uses a only a few times a year. I could at least walk around in 20 or so years and say "I funded this" rather than pointing at a rusting boat nobody will ever care about.

> I often think that if I were a billionaire,I'd rather spend hundreds of millions on some cool R&D projects rather than having some 100 meter boat that one uses a only a few times a year. Billionaires buy cars and boats because they're stores of value. For instance, a Mclaren from the 90s is worth more today than when it was sold.

Sports cars and boats cost a fortune to maintain. They're terrible financial vehicles.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#567

Post by appstorelottery »

dang wrote: post #485
appstorelottery wrote: post #458

I'm surprised to see the amount of downvotes that follow negativity pointed at Microsoft. What's going on here? EDIT: Oh. I see. I wasn't aware that OpenAI was a YC thing. I've been a member of Hacker News through various accounts for countless years, however this is the first time I've seen moderation pushing towards an obvious YC agenda. Very interesting... EDIT2: Actually, after reading the comments - I find it mo…

I can't really tell what you're saying, but if you're insinuating foul play, I haven't seen evidence of that in this thread. In any case, the site guidelines ask you to email hn@ycombinator.com with concerns instead of posting comments about them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My apologies - you are correct.

>Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#568

Post by acqq »

laughinghan wrote: post #511
DuskStar wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1939, Enrico Fermi expressed 90% confidence [0] that creating a self-sustaining nuclear reaction with Uranium was impossible. And, if you're working with U238, it basically is! But it turns out that it's possible to separate out U235 in sufficient quantities to use that instead. On the 2nd of December, 1942 he led an experiment at Chicago Pile 1 [1] that initiated the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction. And it…

> 90% confidence [0] that creating a self-sustaining nuclear reaction with Uranium was impossible But the fact that Fermi was doing such a calculation in the first place proves that we knew in principle how a fission weapon could work, even if we didn't know "how far off [they] were". As soon as we figured out the moon was just a rock 240,000 miles away, we knew in principle we could go there, even if we didn't know…

> as soon as we figured out the moon was just a rock 240,000 miles away, we knew in principle we could go there, even if we didn't know how far off that would be

I have problems agreeing with that specific claim, knowing that both "the rock" and the distance were known to some ancient Greeks around 2200 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus

Hipparchus estimated the distance to the Moon in the Earth radii to between 62 and 80 (depending on the method he used, as he intentionally used two different). Today's measurements are between 55 and 64.

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#569

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

simonh wrote: post #566
johnvanommen wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I often think that if I were a billionaire,I'd rather spend hundreds of millions on some cool R&D projects rather than having some 100 meter boat that one uses a only a few times a year. Billionaires buy cars and boats because they're stores of value. For instance, a Mclaren from the 90s is worth more today than when it was sold.

Sports cars and boats cost a fortune to maintain. They're terrible financial vehicles.

This article is more than five years old, so I'll let it speak for itself:

This shows that in the 12 months to the end of June the value of classic cars as a whole was up by 28%, which compared with a rise of 12% for the FTSE-100 index of leading shares and a 23% slump in the price of gold.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/07/luxury-inve...

Re: Microsoft is investing $1B in OpenAI

#570

Post by hanselot »

warent wrote: post #489
distdev89 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that matter? Does diversity for the cause of diversity lead to better results? Is there any data around this? Hiring the most qualified people is the most important thing. As long as there isn't an inherent bias for not hiring someone who is hispanic, black, or brown, it should b e fine.

What you're posing is an age-old counterargument based around an irrational fear of white people experiencing prejudice and losing out on opportunities to underqualified people they would have otherwise had. There have been studies done around diversity, conducted both privately and publicly, which consistently conclude that increased diversity does result in enhanced decision-making, collaboration, and organizationa…

Can you tell me how much diversity juice I need to add to my team to make it perfect? Do I need to hire 1 black person for every white person? Please, provide me the ratio required to avoid marginal returns.

I would need to undergo DNA testing for each person to avoid hiring anyone that is too much of one race. Do I get better returns if I hire someone that has 25% of 4 different races?

Please elaborate on your very empirically verifiable and obviously logically cohesive argument. If you don't understand where my skepticism originates from, please turn your attention to the results of Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa (where racial quotas are enforced to ensure the blackest candidate is hired, not the best candidate).

Look at the performance of the South African sports teams that have been forced to recruit players not based on merit, but on the colour of their skin.

Post reply on HN