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

201–210 of 915 posts

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

#201

Post by HWR_14 »

ambicapter wrote: post #167
renticulous wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors are typically people with surplus money to invest. Progress cannot be made without trial and error. So fleecing of investors for the greater good of humanity is something I shall allow.

A "surplus of money"? So people saving for retirement have a "surplus of money"? Basically if any money is standing still, it's a legitimate tactic to just...take it, in your mind. Other people just call it "theft".

No one with a small 401k is able to invest in OpenAI/Anthropic/etc. The people investing in those companies can afford to lose their investments.

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

#202

Post by AntiUSAbah »

benterix wrote: post #191
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are throwing unheared amounts of money in AI and unseen compute. Progress is huge and fast and we barely started. If this progress and focus and resources doesn't lead to AI despite us already seeing a system which was unimaginable 6 years ago, we will never see AGI. And if you look at Boston Dynamics, Unitree and Generalist's progress on robotics, thats also CRAZY.

Not sure if you're being sincere or sarcastic but some of us have lived through several AI winters now. And the fact that such a phenomenon exists is because of this terrible amount of hype the topic gets whenever any progress is made.

Which ones? At least in the last 4 years, there was no AI winter.

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

#203

Post by saadn92 »

That's a pretty good swap if you're Microsoft. Exclusivity was already unenforceable in practice, and they were going to have to either sue their biggest AI partner or let it slide. Instead they got the agi escape hatch closed and a revenue cap that at least makes the payments predictable

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

#204

Post by khuey »

ambicapter wrote: post #158
CWwdcdk7h wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds really similar to Uber pitch about how they are going to have monopoly as soon as they replace those pesky drivers with own fleet of self driving cars. That was supposed to be their competitive edge against other taxi apps. In the end they sold ATG at end of 2020 :D

ATH?

ATG = Advanced Technology Group, i.e. Uber's self-driving org.

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

#205

Post by gowld »

ZeroCool2u wrote: post #11

Interesting side effect of this is that Google Cloud may now be the only hype scaler that can resell all 3 of the labs models? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but that would be a notable development, and I don't see why Google would allow Gemini to be resold through any of the other cloud providers. Might really increase the utility of those GCP credits.

"hype scaler" indeed!

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

#206

Post by weatherlite »

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.

It's not a great definition but it's also not a terrible one either. For an AI system to be able to do all or even most of the jobs in an economy it has to be well rounded in a way it still isn't today, meaning: reliability, planning, long term memory, physical world manipulation etc. A system that can do all of that well enough so it can do the jobs of doctors, programmers and plumbers is generally intelligent in my view.

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

#207

Post by AntiUSAbah »

bmitc wrote: post #188
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are throwing unheared amounts of money in AI and unseen compute. Progress is huge and fast and we barely started. If this progress and focus and resources doesn't lead to AI despite us already seeing a system which was unimaginable 6 years ago, we will never see AGI. And if you look at Boston Dynamics, Unitree and Generalist's progress on robotics, thats also CRAZY.

Same thing happened with self-driving cars. Oh and cryptocurrencies.

Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. Its not comparable.

Crypto was flawed from the beginning and lots of people didn't understood it properly. Not even that a blockchain can't secure a transaction from something outside of a blockchain.

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

#208

Post by senordevnyc »

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.

Please reveal the “scientific” definition of AGI.

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

#210

Post by hackinthebochs »

izzydata wrote: post #82
someguyiguess wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any sufficiently complex LLM is indistinguishable from AGI

If we take that statement as fact then I don't believe we are even close to an LLM being sufficiently complex enough. However, I don't think it is even true. LLMs may not even be on the right track to achieving AGI and without starting from scratch down an alternate path it may never happen. LLMs to me seem like a complicated database lookup. Storage and retrieval of information is just a single piece of intelligence…

>I'll believe it when I see it.

And how will you know AGI when you saw it?

Post reply on HN