281–290 of 541 posts
Does MS think they have a big moat in these? It won't be long until we have an open version , and although they need a lot of compute , maybe in 1-2 years they ll have come down in size enough to be usable. Is it the training data?
>The AI firm is currently raising funds at a $29 billion valuation. >The tech-industry giant is ready to pay upwards of $10 billion for the acquisition [49%] So Microsoft is undervaluing them, and also soaking up 75% of profit until their investment is paid back? Seems like a bad deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still more open than Google, Microsoft or DeepMind
In what specific ways? Google and Microsoft both release and contribute to open source software. They both publish vast amounts of research. What does OpenAI do differentially?
This is probably a stupid question, but why would they want a 49% stake? Why not a 51% stake, or any other number?
Does MS think they have a big moat in these? It won't be long until we have an open version , and although they need a lot of compute , maybe in 1-2 years they ll have come down in size enough to be usable. Is it the training data?
From what I have read with these models it is in-fact the data that can be the most useful piece of the puzzle.
I notice a few people lamenting that OpenAI will no longer be... open. But I have to wonder, in what sense is OpenAI open today ? In 2019, OpenAI transitioned from non-profit to for-profit. At that time, Microsoft invested US$1 billion into the company. OpenAI then announced its intention to commercially license its technologies.
But what you can say is that some but not all of their released products are released with code under open source licenses. Eg:
https://github.com/openai/whisper/blob/main/LICENSE (an actual product, to transcribe audio, which it really does extremely well; and it's open source code; released last fall)
So that's one sense in which they produce "open" things today.
I would personally expect that all of their "openness", from the currently free trial (but not open source) cloud-hosted products, to the code released as open source licenses -- are part of a business strategy to get awareness of the technology and of them as a brand, and buy-in, and can/will be changed at any point if it makes business sense. As we increasingly see with so many companies that start out even all-in with open source. (Say, elasticsearch). I think we should assume almost any for-profit company producing open source is in this category.
I think their name is a marketting gimmick to make people assume they are some kind of academic non-profit.
I don't know if it's obvious what a Microsoft purchase might do to those plans/timelines. In some ways MS's deep pockets might mean that free and/or open source offerings can persist longer, extend the metaphorical runway. MS will definitely want to be known as the authority on AI, and making sure people keep seeing your stuff to be impressed by it, and making sure it gets used by enough people to stay "the standard" is how you do that.
What tech does OpenAI actually have? I thought GPT was most of the smarts and the website was just VC money to burn through cloud resources. I'd think Google can do the same but realize the compute costs just make it too expensive.
If anyone was actually awake at the wheel at Google they should be afraid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the path to monetization for Microsoft for OpenAI/ChatGPT?
Adding it to Bing could be an actual differentiator, which has been announced. MS also has a lot of speech tech, so making a search engine an actual spoken chat could possibly be huge. That's just for Bing.
There's a video on YouTube with a UK reporter having a 20 minute conversation with ChatGPT ..I wanted to use that but I guess it's a private app created by Open AI.