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

251–260 of 298 posts

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#251

Post by mxkopy »

jefftk wrote: post #190
mxkopy wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Patagonia thing was not legit at all according to Adam Hates Everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I EDIT by "not legit" I mean "not authentic"

Adam's argument seems to be: 1. If instead of donating the company he had left it to his kids he would have paid a lot in taxes (2:58) 2. He donated the voting shares of the company to a 501c4 that will remain controlled by his family and is allowed to lobby the government (4:10) 3. Normally when you make a donation you're giving up influence over what happens after that (4:25). 4. Other billionaires do other things…

All I can say is that once you get to a certain level of wealth, money really is just a means to an end. The fact that they have less doesn't matter if they get their ends, one of which in this case is substantial influence over whatever organization they set up with this money.

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#252

Post by drdaeman »

logicallee wrote: post #192
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI wants to be perceived as an open, academic, capped-profit for a noble reason collective. Does anybody actually believe this? Their name has been a running joke for years already.

You ask "does anyone believe this"? I decided to think about whether I believe OpenAI is "open, academic, capped-profit for a noble reason collective". I'll list some pros/contras in no particular order: CONTRA: I can't download ChatGPT and run it locally. Why not? Clearly they are hoarding it. PRO: They genuinely overtrain toward responses that the model judges benefit humanity, to the point of failing at the task.…

It doesn't have to publish the models, but everything necessary to do so (training toolset, code that runs the model itself, etc).

I think over 99.999% of people would be totally cool if it'd be "Hey, we ran this on a crazy number of GPUs feeding it half of the Internet and then some, and got a damn fine model you can try on our site. It costed us an arm and leg so we can't just share it with everyone for free. But if you want your own chatbot and have a spare fortune - here's our research and tooling, have fun with it. Oh, and here's what we fed it to prevent it from spewing some hatred, misinformation and other bullshit - a socially responsible thing to do. Good luck."

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#253

Post by jiggawatts »

tester756 wrote: post #248
jiggawatts wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the responses to this are just preconceptions or assumptions. Azure does have unique offerings, such as higher-spec compute nodes than AWS and RDMA-capable “HPC” sizes that can be used to build mini supercomputers. AFAIK, no other public cloud has this type of capability.

Indeed, it's crazy how people can go out here and claim crazy stuff as if they knew internals of Azure

"I like Linux and Amazon, hence Azure must be bad. I assume, I've never seen it." is something I've heard commonly.

I have a customer where they use both clouds, and they will spend weeks spinning up Rube Goldberg machines in AWS even though there is a turnkey solution available in Azure.

For example, Elastic File System (EFS) in AWS is only compatible with UNIX-like operating systems, because it is NFS v4. Azure has both NFS and SMB file shares as a service -- the latter is a unique offering. It's not magic, but it does eliminate quite a bit of complexity around managing large, scalable file server clusters for Windows clients if you need that kind of thing.

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#254

Post by mimotomo »

bossyTeacher wrote: post #238
naillo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also as part of this exchange Microsoft will own 49% of the company.

source?

https://www.semafor.com/article/01/09/2023/microsoft-eyes-10...

(over German Golem.de - https://www.golem.de/news/gpt-dall-e-copilot-microsoft-soll-...)

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#255

Post by bamboozled »

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.

If it was "open" it should not need a moat, nor have one.

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#256

Post by ben_w »

freejazz wrote: post #243
ben_w wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth isn't the same thing to all people, wealth as humans define it isn't necessarily going to be what a superintelligence values. The speed difference between transistors and synapses is the difference between marathon runners and continental drift; why would an ASI care more about dollars or statues or shares or apartments any more than we care about changes to individual peaks in the mid-Atlantic ridge or how mu…

Wealth doesn't have to be the same thing for everyone for someone to care about. That's evident already because some people care about wealth and others don't. What does the speed difference of transistors have to do with anything? Transistors pale in comparison to the interconnection density of synapses, yet it has nothing to do with wealth either...

Everything you and I consider value is a fixed background from the point of view of a mind whose sole difference from ours is the speedup.

I only see them valuing that if they're also extremely neophobic in a way that, for example, would look like a human thinking that "fire" and "talking" are dangerously modern.

> Transistors pale in comparison to the interconnection density of synapses

Not so. Transistor are also smaller than synapses by about the degree to which marathon runners are smaller than hills.

Even allowing extra space for interconnections and cheating in favour of biology by assuming an M1 chip is a full millimetre thick rather than just however many nanometers it is for the transistors alone, it's still a better volumetric density than us.

(Sucks for power and cost relative to us when used to mimic brains, but that's why it hasn't already taken over).

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#257

Post by MuffinFlavored »

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?

How many GPUs does OpenAI exclusively use daily/how many did it take to train?

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#258

Post by DrBenCarson »

meowkit wrote: post #215
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you agree with me that OpenAI is poorly named. "We wanted to be open, but we couldn't - we kept the name anyway."

The argument then becomes how to interpret "Open", not that you both agree. If they keep publishing their research, then OpenAI seems like a fine name to me.

It’s not even open source lol

I get the need to make money but at least contribute OSS to the community they’re building a product on….

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#259

Post by ShamelessC »

achow wrote: post #206
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI wants to be perceived as an open, academic, capped-profit for a noble reason collective. Does anybody actually believe this? Their name has been a running joke for years already.

Sam Altman addresses that when he was asked that question in 'How I Built This' Podcast. Essentially: OpenAI did not realize the massive scale they needed for them to be successful. When they realized this, they could not raise any funding as 'non-profit'. They asked govt, who did not want to fund it, and other sources, at the end they did not have any other recourse. Sam Altaman says: 90% of funding was needed for c…

Next level gaslighting.

Re: OpenAI and Microsoft extend partnership

#260

Post by ShamelessC »

pkdpic wrote: post #185
OnlineGladiator wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI wants to be perceived as an open, academic, capped-profit for a noble reason collective. Does anybody actually believe this? Their name has been a running joke for years already.

Not to diminish anyone's appreciation for OpenAI's increasingly performance-art level Orwellian name but I have found myself believing that their preference would still be to secure funding that would allow them to live up to the implied openness if it was ever an option. Sam Altman has stated over and over again that they tried to solicit interest / investment from public sources like governments before resorting to…

Sam Altman is also deeply entrenched in the land of venture capital, where a CEO's ability to bs is as important as their level of media experience.
Post reply on HN