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

OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 298 posts

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#111

Post by muskmusk »

adpirz wrote: post #61

For people more well versed in this space: does GPT / OpenAI more broadly have a meaningful moat? It seems like there will be a number of these models out there and this isn't as great as say Google's up-till-now advantage in search relevancy.

I think that if you could conclusively answer that question you would be sipping drinks on a beach somewhere. The people who are investing seems to think so. Also the applications of this tech is broader than search, but still includes it. A company that had a serious chance of eating at Google's search revenue while also generating new revenue streams. What is that worth? What if you already have 1000 products that would benefit from the new capabilities? This is probably an easy investment decision even if Microsoft gains nothing from the actual investment itself.

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#112

Post by Spivak »

davidy123 wrote: post #90
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #24

2023 is the year of Bing, calling it now.

That really depends on how much the public accepts results without sources, aka no credit, aka rampant breaking of social norms and copyright, as well as destroying the easy ability to verify something. In many ways, OpenAI and anyone who supports it are trying to pull an Uber here, but shift the Overton on something indescribably larger than transportation licenses. They want to Borg global intelligence (though, of…

I think you're assuming that Bing is just going to let GPT blindly answer queries, that's not at all how you build a system like that.

How it actually works is more like:

1. User asks "What's the tallest building in the world?"

2. MS, rightfully, assumes that GPT has no idea what the answer to this is. And even if you trusted it to know, it will always lag behind and new buildings could have been built since then.

3. MS searches their index for the most relevant document snippets related to this query and feeds it to GPT as context.

4. MS asks GPT to answer the question in the context of those document snippets.

5. MS returns the result from GPT along with references to the documents it sourced the information from.

This is how the OpenAI /search endpoint used to work.

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#113

Post by charcircuit »

drexlspivey wrote: post #34
Closi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cap is 100x, so assuming Microsoft is investing billions in a current valuation of $29 billion as rumoured, the cap will only really come into place once OpenAI becomes the most valuable company in the world.

How does this cap work in practice? If I bought shares at $1 and someone wants to buy them from me at $200 what happens?

>Any excess returns go to OpenAI Nonprofit.

https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp/

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#114

Post by davidy123 »

Spivak wrote: post #112
davidy123 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really depends on how much the public accepts results without sources, aka no credit, aka rampant breaking of social norms and copyright, as well as destroying the easy ability to verify something. In many ways, OpenAI and anyone who supports it are trying to pull an Uber here, but shift the Overton on something indescribably larger than transportation licenses. They want to Borg global intelligence (though, of…

I think you're assuming that Bing is just going to let GPT blindly answer queries, that's not at all how you build a system like that. How it actually works is more like: 1. User asks "What's the tallest building in the world?" 2. MS, rightfully, assumes that GPT has no idea what the answer to this is. And even if you trusted it to know, it will always lag behind and new buildings could have been built since then. 3.…

If it does that, and properly highlights the sources, I have nothing to criticize. Though, I think the results won't be as good if it doesn't use its entire breadth (if it does, the problem reappears).

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#115

Post by tyre »

lonelyasacloud wrote: post #109
Closi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cap is 100x, so assuming Microsoft is investing billions in a current valuation of $29 billion as rumoured, the cap will only really come into place once OpenAI becomes the most valuable company in the world.

Google apparently has a market cap of around $1.200 Trillion based [0] largely on (for 2021) revenue of 256.7 billion U.S. dollars, of which 209.49 billion U.S. dollars came from advertising [1]. It's apparently fourth on the list of valuable companies [4] If OpenAI takes a good chunk of Google's ad revenues then it doesn't seem that fanciful that it'll be up toward the top of market caps. [0] https://companiesmarket…

How would OpenAI take a majority of AdWords inventory? Maybe it could write the ads but you’re paying for placement.

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#116

Post by Miraste »

mft_ wrote: post #46
koolba wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I asked a question of chatgpt. > Paragraph 8: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said, "We are excited to continue our partnership with OpenAI to drive innovation and progress in the field of artificial intelligence. This new investment will enable us to bring the benefits of AI to more people and organizations around the world." > Paragraph 9: OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, "We are thrilled to be continuing our partnership…

In companies of Microsoft's size, the quotes are almost certainly layers away from (in this case) Satya having any input other than final signoff. The communications team will have written the text, including the quotes, and it will likely have gone through the hierarchy for review and approvals. So genuinely, does it really matter whether the original much-reviewed PR-blah quote is written by a junior comms human, o…

This is why ChatGPT is so good at corporate language. It takes no understanding because it was already 95% content-free.

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#117

Post by awestroke »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #85
thethimble wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These “terrible people” seem to have catapulted the world into a generative AI world. They genuinely believe they will build AGI and therefore becoming the world’s most valuable company is a natural consequence. Whether this is possible/probable is a different story, but I think a capped profit structure makes logical sense for the company that is aiming to create AGI. Would you want this technology instead in the ha…

It is a for profit company in everything but name. That's my main complain. It has Musk, Thiel and Livingston amongst its initial investors, all known as the greatest philantropists of our time. /s I don't understand why they put this thin veneer on top of what they are doing. Maybe Thiel was burnt with the bad press surrounding Palantir and this is preventive damage control.

It's literally a nonprofit

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#120

Post by drexlspivey »

dorkwood wrote: post #43
drexlspivey wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this cap work in practice? If I bought shares at $1 and someone wants to buy them from me at $200 what happens?

They keep it, but it goes to the non-profit arm of their business. “But any returns beyond that amount… are owned by the original OpenAI Nonprofit entity.” https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp/

> The fundamental idea of OpenAI LP is that investors and employees can get a capped return if we succeed at our mission

Sorry I still don’t get it. If a private equity investor has shares and another investor wants to buy them off of him at 200x they can do that right? Are they obliged to give any excess returns to the non profit? Can’t they just sell the shares at 50x and then buy them back (perhaps through some other entity) to get around that trivially?

Or does this refer to return from dividents?

Post reply on HN