61–70 of 915 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might not be good for Gemini long term if Anthropic and OpenAI can and will sell in every cloud provider they can find but businesses can only use Gemini via Google Cloud.
How is it good for Gemini that it's not available on two out of three major cloud platforms?
Kagi Translate was kind enough to turn this from LinkedIn Speak to English: The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy. We had to rewrite the contract because the old one wasn't working for anyone. Basically, we’re trying to make it look like we’re still friends while we both start seeing other people. Here is what’s actually happening: 1. Microsoft is still the main guy, but if they can't keep up with the tec…
Biggest upside of this is I expect OpenAI models to be available on Bedrock, which is huge for not having to go back to all your customers with data protection agreements.
This seems impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do the investments make sense if AGI is not less than 10 years away?
> Do the investments make sense if AGI is not less than 10 years away? They can. If one consolidated the AI industry into a single monopoly, it would probably be profitable. That doesn't mean in its current state it can't succumb to ruionous competition. But the AGI talk seems to be mostly aimed at retail investors and philospher podcasters than institutional capital.
> OpenAI has contracted to purchase an incremental $250B of Azure services, and Microsoft will no longer have a right of first refusal to be OpenAI’s compute provider. Azure is effectively OpenAI's personal compute cluster at this scale.
What fraction of Azure compute does OpenAI represent? (Does the $250bn commitment have a time period? Is it legally binding?)
The AGI talk is shocking but not surprising to anyone looking at how bombastic Sam Altman's public statements are. The circular economy section really is shocking- OpenAI committing to buying $250 Billion of Azure services, while MSFT's stake is clarified as $132 Billion in OpenAI. Same circular nonsense as NVIDIA and OpenAI passing the same hundred billion back and forth.
Mac: You're damn right. Thus creating the self-sustaining economy we've been looking for.
Dennis: That's right.
Mac: How much fresh cash did we make?
Dennis: Fresh cash! Uh, well, zero. Zero if you're talking about U.S. currency. People didn't really seem interested in spending any of that.
Mac: That's okay. So, uh, when they run out of the booze, they'll come back in and they'll have to buy more Paddy's Dollars. Keepin' it moving.
Dennis: Right. That is assuming, of course, that they will come back here and drink.
Mac: They will! They will because we'll re-distribute these to the Shanties. Thus ensuring them coming back in, keeping the money moving.
Dennis: Well, no, but if we just re-distribute these, people will continue to drink for free.
Mac: Okay...
Dennis: How does this work, Mac?
Mac: The money keeps moving in a circle.
Dennis: But we don't have any money. All we have is this. ... How does this work, dude!?
Mac: I don't know. I thought you knew.
Pursue "new opportunities"? Microslop is dumping OpenAI and wishes it well in its new endeavors.
In retrospect all those OAI announcements are gonna look so cringe. They did not need to go so hard on the hype - Anthropic hasn’t in relative terms and is generating pretty comparable revenues at present.
OpenAI bet on consumers; Anthropic on enterprise. That will necessitate a louder marketing strategy for the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do the investments make sense if AGI is not less than 10 years away? They can. If one consolidated the AI industry into a single monopoly, it would probably be profitable. That doesn't mean in its current state it can't succumb to ruionous competition. But the AGI talk seems to be mostly aimed at retail investors and philospher podcasters than institutional capital.
What kind of ludicrous statement is this? Any monopoly with viable economics for profit with no threat of competition yields monopoly profits…
"With viable economics" is the point.
My "ludicrous statement" is a back-of-the-envelope test for whether an industry is nonsense. For comparison, consolidating all of the Pets.com competitors in the late 1990s would not have yielded a profitable company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were paying them 20% of the revenue from the hosted OpenAI products I believe?
Does this mean they will host OpenAI products but not pay them? Or does it mean they are paying them in some other way?