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

331–340 of 915 posts

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

#331

Post by IshKebab »

lesuorac wrote: post #318
snek_case wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The metaverse is another example if anyone doubts the bounds of corporate stupidity.

Why? FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]). The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not be…

Because it's been very clear for a long time that the vast majority of people do not want to play VR Second Life.

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

#332

Post by turtlesdown11 »

sn0wr8ven wrote: post #285
jmward01 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI. If you gave me CC in the 80's I would probably have called it 'alive' since it clearly passes the Turing test as I understood it then (I wouldn't have been able to distinguish it from a person for most conversations). Now every time it gets better we push that definition further and every crack we open to a chasm and declare that it isn't close. At the same time there ar…

I don't think the goalpost has been shifted for AGI or the definition of AGI that is used by these corporations. It's just they broke it down to stages to claim AGI achieved. It was always a model or system that surpasses human capabilities at most tasks/being able to replace a human worker. The big companies broke it down to AGI stage 1, stage 2, etc to be able to say they achieved AGI. The Turing Test/Imitation Gam…

AGI moved from a technical goal to a marketing term

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

#333

Post by matthewkayin »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75
azinman2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was actually really helpful. I feel like it should be done for all PR speak.

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…

> "The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy" is objectively wrong–it has been messy for months

I'm pretty sure "just" is being used here to mean "simply" rather than "recently".

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

#334

Post by [deleted] »

smcg wrote: post #297
breezybottom wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the advancement in AI over the last four years has greatly exceeded the advancement in understanding the workings of human intelligence. What paradigm shift has there been recently in that field?

What have we learned that isn't in my textbook from the 90s?

[deleted]

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

#335

Post by AntiUSAbah »

mort96 wrote: post #305
dpark wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your claim is that human intelligence is a next token predictor. Literally it is, at least in many of its forms. You accepted CamperBob2’s text as input and then you generated text as output. Unless you are positing that this behavior cannot prove your own general intelligence, it seems plain that “next token generator” is sufficient for AGI. (Whether the current LLM architecture is sufficient is a slightly differe…

Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic and decide on what I shall write in response. Due to the linear nature of time, typing necessarily happens one word at a time, but I am never producing a probability distribution of words (at least not in a way that my conscious self can determine), I consider an entire idea and then decide what tokens to enter into the computer in order to communicate the ide…

But a LLM shows similiar effects.

COCONUT, PCCoT, PLaT and co are directly linked to 'thinking in latent space'. yann lecun is working on this too, we have JEPA now.

Also how do you describe or explain how an LLM is generating the next token when it should add a feature to an existing code base? In my opinion it has structures which allows it to create a temp model of that code.

For sure a LLM lack the emotional component but what we humans also do, which indicates to me, that we are a lot closer to LLMs that we want to be, if you have a weird body feeling (stress, hot flashes, anger, etc.) your 'text area/llm/speech area' also tries to make sense of it. Its not always very good in doing so. That emotional body feeling is not that aligned with it and it takes time to either understand or ignore these types of inputs to the text area/llm/speech part of our brain.

I'm open for looking back in 5 years and saying 'man that was a wild ride but no AGI' but at the current quality of LLMs and all the other architectures and type of models and money etc. being thrown at AGI, for now i don't see a ceiling at all. I only see crazy unseen progress.

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

#336

Post by godshatter »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #255
mort96 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but the input to a model is a sequence of tokens and the output is a probability distribution of what's the most likely next token. It's a very very very fancy next token predictor but that is fundamentally what it is. I'm making the argument that this paradigm might not give rise to a general intelligence no matter how much you scale it.

It's a very very very fancy next token predictor Yes, and unless you are prepared to rebut the argument with evidence of the supernatural, that's all there is, period. That's all we are. So tired of the thought-terminating "stochastic parrot" argument.

Do LLMs even learn? The companies that build them build new models based partly on the conversations the older models have had with people, but do they incorporate knowledge into their neural nets as they go along?

Can an LLM decide, without prompting or api calls, to text someone or go read about something or do anything at all except for waiting for the next prompt?

Do LLMs have any conceptual understanding of anything they output? Do they even have a mechanism for conceptual understanding?

LLMs are incredibly useful and I'm having a lot of fun working with them, but they are a long way from some kind of general intelligence, at least as far as I understand it.

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

#337

Post by freejazz »

AntiUSAbah wrote: post #207
bmitc wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has.

And yet they don't do really good jobs with pretty much anything, save for software development, to which people still seem pretty split as far as it being a helpful thing. That's before we even factor in the cost.

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

#338

Post by tyre »

freediddy wrote: post #118

Nadella had OpenAI by the short and curlies early on. But all I've seen from him in the last couple of years is continuously acquiescing to OpenAI's demands. I wonder why he's so weak and doesn't exert more control over the situation? At one point Microsoft owned 49% of OpenAI but now it's down to 27%?

They had to negotiate away the non-profit structure of OpenAI. Sam used that as a marketing and recruiting tool, but it had outlived that and was only a problem from then on.

For OAI to be a purely capitalist venture, they had to rip that out. But since the non-profit owned control of the company, it had to get something for giving up those rights. This led to a huge negotiation and MSFT ended up with 27% of a company that doesn’t get kneecapped by an ethical board.

In reality, though, the board of both the non-profit and the for profit are nearly identical and beholden to Sam, post–failed coup.

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

#339

Post by ZeWaka »

happyPersonR wrote: post #128
xvilka wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Azure still doesn't support IPv6, looking at the GitHub[1]. [1] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539

lol GitHub doesn’t run on azure at msft They still run their own platform.

I talked to github devs last week in person, when a lot of the AzDo team was brought over years ago the migration started happening.

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

#340

Post by turtlesdown11 »

AntiUSAbah wrote: post #178
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.

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.

> Progress is huge and fast

is it? we're currently scaled on data input and LLMs in general, the only thing making them advance at all right now is adding processing power

Post reply on HN