OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

Post by ProAm » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 5:17 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #139

ProAm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you should consider reading more about Patagonia I'd be open to reading more. I think they are largely a good company but feel like this move was more of a tax dodge and to ensure generational wealth than for altruism. But I am open to being wrong about it. But everyone involved in OpenAI doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings at all. I admit it's largely cynicism until I know more. But there isnt enough time in t…

Company with decades of going way, way out of norms to operate as an ethical organization at virtually every level does an additional virtuous task: oh ya that’s a tax dodge

Post by bayindirh » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 5:18 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #140

Let me translate this blog post out of corpspeak...: OpenAI has agreed to use Azure exclusively and for free, in return for Azure massively scaling up it's GPU capacity (which OpenAI was hitting before, hence threatening to move). In return, OpenAI gives an extensive license to Microsoft to use ChatGPT in Bing (and other products). Now why couldn't the blog post have just said that rather than hiding all the details?

Post by stale2002 » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

rvz wrote: post #151

Spivak wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making the best developer tools for free or at least close to free The bastards! Making and releasing high quality developer tools. We have to stop them! Has MS actually EEE'd anything in the last 25 years? I legit can't think of a single formerly-open thing that's been Microsofted via their own extensions.

The methods are different but the strategy is the same. They have used this strategy with Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL), VSCode + extensions, Winget, Microsoft Teams, GitHub, and now OpenAI. Microsoft can afford to maintain all these offerings for free whilst competitors suffocate and struggle to compete with their paid offerings. You can't compete with free, especially when there is a company who can afford to r…

Post by Throwaway045814 » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #132

drexlspivey wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ot…

My guess is it likely has to do with dividends. But if your returns from the stocks are capped at 100x your share value, an efficient market would mean you share value never grows 200x.

Post by OnlineGladiator » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

bayindirh wrote: post #163

londons_explore wrote: post #140

Let me translate this blog post out of corpspeak...: OpenAI has agreed to use Azure exclusively and for free, in return for Azure massively scaling up it's GPU capacity (which OpenAI was hitting before, hence threatening to move). In return, OpenAI gives an extensive license to Microsoft to use ChatGPT in Bing (and other products). Now why couldn't the blog post have just said that rather than hiding all the details?

Because they didn't want to openly say "Microsoft gives us GPUs and allows us to use them for free, hence practically buys us. In return we almost exclusively license what we produce to them, for free." Because it looks bad. Microsoft wants to be seen in a different light, and OpenAI wants to be perceived as an open, academic, capped-profit for a noble reason collective. It's all smoke and mirrors.