Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#481

Post by JonChesterfield » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:00 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #183

noobermin wrote: post #166

I'm becoming convinced that the "Microsoft is a good guy now" narrative was just a narrative, they still are the same company they always were.

Then you're wrong, Microsoft (or any company for that matter) have never been like people that you can judge like "good" or "bad". They are businesses, whose purpose is to make money. They do whatever seems best to do at the time in order to optimize most money earned. The same every single public company does, all the time.

You can definitely judge a company to be bad. Nestle is the second one to come to mind. You judge the company on its actions.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#482

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:00 PM UTC

metadat wrote: post #476

airstrike wrote: post #470

Saw this article earlier this week that might interest the people on this thread: "Claude: The first ChatGPT competitor has arrived" https://mpost.io/claude-the-first-chatgpt-competitor-has-arr...

Nice find, I hope you don't mind my submitting it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34331396 Definitely excited to try out any competition to ChatGPT. Edit: I found an even better article which goes more in-depth, https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/09/anthropics-claude-improves...

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#483

Post by airstrike » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

metadat wrote: post #476

airstrike wrote: post #470

Saw this article earlier this week that might interest the people on this thread: "Claude: The first ChatGPT competitor has arrived" https://mpost.io/claude-the-first-chatgpt-competitor-has-arr...

Nice find, I hope you don't mind my submitting it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34331396 Definitely excited to try out any competition to ChatGPT. Edit: I found an even better article which goes more in-depth, https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/09/anthropics-claude-improves...

I don't mind at all! I submitted the article I had found but it never got much traction. Let's see if yours has better luck -- and yes, that is a much better article

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#484

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

lacker wrote: post #405

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 boar…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#485

Post by lvl102 » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:10 PM UTC

A bit OT but this really goes to show how MSFT managed to fail their way to win again. They produced crap products for a decade while Balmer ran the company. They were able to do that because they had a monopoly. MSFT completely transformed under cloud and web 2.0 paradigm. And they will continue to do so by acquiring techs.

The same goes for Google and Amazon. They will continue to grow because tech innovations are naturally accruing to the big tech companies. Clearly no sign of breaking this trend.

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#486

Post by metadat » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #483

metadat wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice find, I hope you don't mind my submitting it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34331396 Definitely excited to try out any competition to ChatGPT. Edit: I found an even better article which goes more in-depth, https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/09/anthropics-claude-improves...

I don't mind at all! I submitted the article I had found but it never got much traction. Let's see if yours has better luck -- and yes, that is a much better article

That's very generous of you, airstrike. Thank you and cheers!

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#487

Post by darkerside » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:25 PM UTC

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…

Seems trivial for MS to buy another 2% from another investor

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#488

Post by jefftk » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:27 PM UTC

Der_Einzige wrote: post #471

jefftk wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what they have is open source How is https://github.com/openai/whisper not open source?

That's the only thing they open sourced. Also not NLP. That's speech to text.

How is speech to text (speech recognition) not NLP?

I used to work in NLP and the team next to me worked in speech to text. Though this was a decade ago and maybe terms have drifted? But it's listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language_processing#Co...

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#489

Post by jjeaff » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:28 PM UTC

loa_in_ wrote: post #480

mshake2 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wait for the inevitable lawsuits that will result when this technology is white-labeled and misrepresents the business to customers or investors.

> I can't wait for the inevitable lawsuits But there's no ill intent. As long as it's not labeled as human. I guess it applies to everything, even sentient AIs, that it's fair as long as they don't promise services of a human.

It doesn't seem like that would magically protect a business. Otherwise, you could just have an AI write all your terms of service and marketing copy. That way, if you get sued, you can just say "oh, an AI wrote that marketing copy. We never claimed that a human made those promises."

Re: Microsoft eyes $10B bet on ChatGPT

#490

Post by davidguetta » Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 9:38 PM UTC

cmeacham98 wrote: post #303

davidguetta wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's still crazy that in 2022 the fact that some stupid people can be offended by that have that much importance.

Is it possible, maybe, that it's not "some stupid people" with "much importance" - but actually the average person doesn't want technology to vocally support neo-nazis? To be honest I don't really care either way (at least in this case), but I see people making this argument always act like it's a few elites ruining the world and it's impossible that the average person doesn't 100% agree with them.

Can the average person understand that you can basically make an argument for pretty much anything, and that it doesn't mean you support the thing or what it has done ?

The nazi argument is itself particularly stupid because it seems to me it's super important from an historical point of view, and particularly relevant these days, to understand why 50%+ of the population was supporting the nazi when they came to power.

And for the porn arguments it's dumber.. just go see reddit life stories of people in family where sex talks where baiscally banished and they had problems later (unwanted pregnancies, banished from their families, stds etc...). I'm not even sure at that point that it's a worse thing that children watch instead of not watching it.