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

Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 541 posts

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#401

Post by MuffinFlavored »

xen2xen1 wrote: post #254
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #213

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.

> Adding it to Bing could be an actual differentiator, which has been announced.

For who? I'm not going to switch off of Google to Bing, are you?

How would they get the word out to Google users to give Bing's new feature a try? Headlines like this? How many users will actually switch their daily search engine from Google to Bing due to this? 100k?

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#402

Post by asdff »

matchagaucho wrote: post #391
swagmoney1606 wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that really bothers me is how much of a contradiction "OpenAI" is. There's virtually nothing open about it.

IIRC Musk wanted the auto industry to standardize on an "Open AI" for autopilot, to waive liability and build consensus around ethical decisions.

Maybe he should start with standardizing his charger

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#403

Post by mannerheim »

matmatmatmat wrote: post #378
mannerheim wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what models we're talking about. I've heard reproducing ChatGPT would require on the order of ten million dollars' of compute.

$10 MM of compute doesn't seem all that out-of-reach for most "mid-size" companies, especially if the result is economical.

I don't think the result is economical purely because if it were, Google would be monetising their own models by now (of course, maybe they could monetise it if they were willing to go with a paid instead of ad model for search).

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#404

Post by ops »

ilaksh wrote: post #320
danShumway wrote: post #304

This is just one of the many reasons why I don't think I'm as concerned about AI models as people around me are, either for art, text, or coding. These technologies today are highly subsidized because the people making them want to create a lot of buzz. Yes, as they mature they're going to get better; but I also suspect they're going to become more limited, harder to use, more narrowly targeted, and more expensive to…

It's so weird to me that people don't know that text-davinci-003 and code-davinci-003 exist. OpenAI models available via API and very similar to ChatGPT output in many cases. Also text-davinci-003 was released in a similar time period. It seems very affordable to me as a startup. I have already coded most of the credits system. https://aidev.codes

I think you mean code-davinci-002. I’m waiting for 003 of codex, and I’m fairly sure it’s not available publicly (even to us beta testers) yet.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#405

Post by lacker »

World177 wrote: post #377

> Additionally, a structure with the ownership of OpenAI would be put in place. Microsoft would entail a 49 percent stake while other investors would take over the other 49 percent. The remaining 2 percent will reportedly go to OpenAI’s non-profit parent firm. When OpenAI was funded as a non-profit in 2015, it raised $1 billion from investors that included YC Research. [1] Sam Altman was also the former president of…

I don't know anything about specifically how OpenAI made this transition. But in general this nonprofit to for-profit transition happens a lot.

In general, when you run a for-profit company, the board has a responsibility to the shareholders to not hurt them financially. A nonprofit doesn't have these constraints - who would they be hurting? So if a nonprofit wants to do some weird financial transaction, and the board all agrees, they can usually just do it.

For example, a nonprofit can agree to sell its assets in a complicated deal, and there is no real "external review" of this. So, you could create a for-profit subsidiary that is wholly owned, and then sell off some or all of its stock to a new group of investors. Or create different types of stock, capped or noncapped or preferred or unpreferred or whatever, and allocate different amounts of that to different groups.

In particular, as long as both OpenAI leadership and the leadership of OpenAI's nonprofit parent firm (which are the same people, maybe?) agrees to this round of Microsoft investment, they can probably rewrite the terms in any way they want. Including in such a way that leaves the ownership being 49% Microsoft, 49% other investors, 2% nonprofit parent.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#406

Post by cmelbye »

asdff wrote: post #402
matchagaucho wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC Musk wanted the auto industry to standardize on an "Open AI" for autopilot, to waive liability and build consensus around ethical decisions.

Maybe he should start with standardizing his charger

They are doing that: https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-s...

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#407

Post by brightball »

asdff wrote: post #402
matchagaucho wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC Musk wanted the auto industry to standardize on an "Open AI" for autopilot, to waive liability and build consensus around ethical decisions.

Maybe he should start with standardizing his charger

Industry is too early IMO. There’s a huge need to innovate on rapid recharge.

I’d worry standardizing would negatively impact this.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#408

Post by mshake2 »

swagmoney1606 wrote: post #379
World177 wrote: post #377

> Additionally, a structure with the ownership of OpenAI would be put in place. Microsoft would entail a 49 percent stake while other investors would take over the other 49 percent. The remaining 2 percent will reportedly go to OpenAI’s non-profit parent firm. When OpenAI was funded as a non-profit in 2015, it raised $1 billion from investors that included YC Research. [1] Sam Altman was also the former president of…

One thing that really bothers me is how much of a contradiction "OpenAI" is. There's virtually nothing open about it.

You can ask ChatGPT if you can run it locally, and it will happily say it is open source, then give 2 github.com links that 404 and then say it doesn't know where the code is if you press it for answers.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#409

Post by pera »

swagmoney1606 wrote: post #379
World177 wrote: post #377

> Additionally, a structure with the ownership of OpenAI would be put in place. Microsoft would entail a 49 percent stake while other investors would take over the other 49 percent. The remaining 2 percent will reportedly go to OpenAI’s non-profit parent firm. When OpenAI was funded as a non-profit in 2015, it raised $1 billion from investors that included YC Research. [1] Sam Altman was also the former president of…

One thing that really bothers me is how much of a contradiction "OpenAI" is. There's virtually nothing open about it.

I remember the first time I read "OpenAI" I thought it was a new project of the Khronos Group consortium

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#410

Post by danielbln »

danShumway wrote: post #400
ilaksh wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so weird to me that people don't know that text-davinci-003 and code-davinci-003 exist. OpenAI models available via API and very similar to ChatGPT output in many cases. Also text-davinci-003 was released in a similar time period. It seems very affordable to me as a startup. I have already coded most of the credits system. https://aidev.codes

> very similar to ChatGPT output in many cases I kind of disagree with this, I think ChatGPT is a superior system in terms of pure output. It strikes me as the sort of comparisons people make between Open Source voice recognition (which is great for a lot of stuff) vs the serverside systems (which may be more than you need, but are almost always going to produce better output). Opinion me. > Available via API The onl…

They only recently lowered API prices significantly: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6485334-september-2022-o...
Post reply on HN