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

Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 915 posts

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#101

Post by Maxatar »

iewj wrote: post #64
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

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…

>"...viable economics for profit..."

OP did not include this requirement in their post because doing so would make the claim trivially true.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#102

Post by jakeydus »

lokar wrote: post #74
dinosor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft will no longer pay a revenue share to OpenAI. I feel this looks like a nice thing to have given they remain the primary cloud provider. If Azure improves it's overall quality then I don't see why this ends up as a money printing press as long as OpenAI brings good models?

Does anyone expect azure quality to improve? Has it improved at all in the last 3 years? Does leadership at MS think it needs to improve? I doubt it

Don’t worry I’m sure there’s a few products without copilot integration still. They’ll get to them before too long.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#103

Post by ghostly_s »

Maxatar wrote: post #96
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's better than the original, but still off. "The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy" is objectively wrong–it has been messy for months [1]. Nos. 1 through 3 are fine, though "if they can't keep up with the tech, OpenAI is moving out" parrots OpenAI's party line. No. 4 doesn't make sense–it starts out with "we" referring to OpenAI in the first person but ends by referring to them in the third person "they…

Being objectively correct isn't the goal of the translator, the translator can't possibly know if a statement is truthful. What the translator does is well... translate, specifically from some kind of corporate speak that is really difficult for many people including myself to understand, into something more familiar. I don't expect the translation to take OpenAI's statements and make them truthful or to investigate…

> The only only pure fuck-up I'd call out is switching from third to first person when referring to OpenAI in the same sentence (No. 4).

"We" in this sentence refers to both parties; "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#104

Post by airstrike »

[deleted] wrote: post #99
Maxatar wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being objectively correct isn't the goal of the translator, the translator can't possibly know if a statement is truthful. What the translator does is well... translate, specifically from some kind of corporate speak that is really difficult for many people including myself to understand, into something more familiar. I don't expect the translation to take OpenAI's statements and make them truthful or to investigate…

[deleted]

Presumably the paid version would be even better! But this free translation is already remarkable

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#105

Post by stavros »

aurareturn wrote: post #61
stavros wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it good for Gemini that it's not available on two out of three major cloud platforms?

It isn't. That's why I said "might not be good for Gemini".

Oof, I completely missed that "not", thanks.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#106

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ghostly_s wrote: post #103
Maxatar wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being objectively correct isn't the goal of the translator, the translator can't possibly know if a statement is truthful. What the translator does is well... translate, specifically from some kind of corporate speak that is really difficult for many people including myself to understand, into something more familiar. I don't expect the translation to take OpenAI's statements and make them truthful or to investigate…

> The only only pure fuck-up I'd call out is switching from third to first person when referring to OpenAI in the same sentence (No. 4). "We" in this sentence refers to both parties; "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error.

> "We" in this sentence refers to both parties

Fair enough.

> "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error

I'd say it is. It's a press release from OpenAI. The rest of the release uses the third-person "they" to refer to Microsoft. The LLM traded accuracy for a bad joke, which is someting I associate with LinkedIn speak.

The fundmaental problem might be the OpenAI press release is vague. (And changing. It's changed at least once since I first commented.)

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#107

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #94
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #30

It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.

They redefined AGI to be an economical thing, so they can continue making up their stories. All that talk is really just business, no real science in the room there.

> They redefined AGI to be an economical thing

Huh. Source? I mean, typical OpenAI bullshit, but would love to know how they defined it.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#108

Post by rtkwe »

lucaslazarus wrote: post #48
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #30

It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.

It’s pretty much a religious eschatology at this point

It feels like they have to say/believe it because it's kind of the only thing that can justify the costs being poured into it and the cost it will need to charge eventually (barring major optimizations) to actually make money on users.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#109

Post by JumpCrisscross »

aurareturn wrote: post #58
31276 wrote: post #20

Pursue "new opportunities"? Microslop is dumping OpenAI and wishes it well in its new endeavors.

I read this as the other way. OpenAI was desperate to dump Microsoft.

> OpenAI was desperate to dump Microsoft

Yes. Microsoft was "considering legal action against its partner OpenAI and Amazon over a $50 billion deal that could violate its exclusive cloud agreement with the ChatGPT maker" [1].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-weighs-legal-ac...

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#110

Post by auscompgeek »

ghostly_s wrote: post #103
Maxatar wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being objectively correct isn't the goal of the translator, the translator can't possibly know if a statement is truthful. What the translator does is well... translate, specifically from some kind of corporate speak that is really difficult for many people including myself to understand, into something more familiar. I don't expect the translation to take OpenAI's statements and make them truthful or to investigate…

> The only only pure fuck-up I'd call out is switching from third to first person when referring to OpenAI in the same sentence (No. 4). "We" in this sentence refers to both parties; "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error.

In isolation sure. But in context with the other points it makes it look like "they" refers to Microsoft in all the dot points.
Post reply on HN