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

451–460 of 915 posts

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

#451

Post by rotcev »

wg0 wrote: post #413

A wise man from Google said in an internal memo to the tune of: "We do not have any moat neither does anyone else." Deepseek v4 is good enough, really really good given the price it is offered at. PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive AI models are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes and their code output MUST be reviewed carefully so Deepseek v4 is not any different either, it too is just a random token…

PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive humans are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes, and their output MUST be reviewed carefully, so you’re not any different either. You’re just a random next-thought generator based on neuron firing distributions with no real thought process, trained on a few billion years of evolution like all other humans.

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

#452

Post by mgol94 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #426
wg0 wrote: post #413

A wise man from Google said in an internal memo to the tune of: "We do not have any moat neither does anyone else." Deepseek v4 is good enough, really really good given the price it is offered at. PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive AI models are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes and their code output MUST be reviewed carefully so Deepseek v4 is not any different either, it too is just a random token…

Can Deepseek answer probing questions about Winnie the Pooh?

What are you using LLMs for? To learn about world’s politics? Oh boy I have a news for you…

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

#453

Post by windexh8er »

harvey9 wrote: post #443
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can Deepseek answer probing questions about Winnie the Pooh?

Is it subject to CCP censorship? Maybe.

It's fun to pretend the US models have no censorship constraints.

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

#454

Post by simonw »

This quote from Matt Levine in 2023 feels relevant: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-11-20/who-co...

> And the investors wailed and gnashed their teeth but it’s true, that is what they agreed to, and they had no legal recourse. And OpenAI’s new CEO, and its nonprofit board, cut them a check for their capped return and said “bye” and went back to running OpenAI for the benefit of humanity. It turned out that a benign, carefully governed artificial superintelligence is really good for humanity, and OpenAI quickly solved all of humanity’s problems and ushered in an age of peace and abundance in which nobody wanted for anything or needed any Microsoft products. And capitalism came to an end.

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

#455

Post by measurablefunc »

johnfn wrote: post #419
measurablefunc wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People want to believe in magic so they will find excuses to do so. Computers have been proving theorems for a long time now but Isabelle/HOL didn't have the marketing budget of OpenAI so people didn't care. Now that Sam Altman is doing the marketing people all of a sudden care about proving theorems.

You are calling something “magic” that actually happened in real life.

You were misrepresenting what actually happened b/c you want to believe in magic. I'm not calling it magic, I'm saying your interpretation of events is magical b/c you don't actually understand how computers work. There is nothing magical about theorem proving, Isabelle/HOL has been doing it for decades.

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

#456

Post by MichaelZuo »

alansaber wrote: post #234
concinds wrote: post #73

Am I crazy, or was this press release fully rewritten in the past 10 minutes? The current version is around half the length of the old one, which did not frame it as a "simplification" "grounded in flexibility" but as a deeper partnership. It also had word salad about AGI, and said Azure retained exclusivity for API products but not other products, which the new statement seems to contradict. What was I looking at?

The in-house or the marketing team swooped in last minute it appears

It’s extraordinary how much standards have slipped. Completely rewriting a major press release that’s already been sent out, while pretending it’s ostensibly the same document would have been a major corporate scandal just 15 years ago.

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

#457

Post by SwellJoe »

DeathArrow wrote: post #410
sarchertech wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is the other frontier lab other than Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google? I thought they were ahead of everyone else.

Folks who make Deepseek, Qwen, GLM, MiniMax, Kimi and MiMo.

They're at the frontier of last year. They compete with Opus 4.5. They don't yet compete with current frontier models.

They'll presumably catch up, there is no monopoly on talent held by the US. And, that's more true than ever now that the US is actively hostile to immigrants. Scientists who might have come to the US three years ago have little reason to do so now.

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

#458

Post by dijit »

senordevnyc wrote: post #226
dijit wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is personal preference, and perhaps I am more fiscally conservative because I grew up in poverty. But if I own 49% of a company and that company has more hype than product, hasn't found its market yet but is valued at trillions? I'm going to sell percentages of that to build my war chest for things that actually hit my bottom line. The "moonshot" has for all intents and purposes been achieved based on the…

It’s not more hype than product, it has found a market (making many billions in revenue), and it’s not valued at trillions. So wrong on all counts.

> It’s not more hype than product, it has found a market (making many billions in revenue)

Speculation based on selling at below cost.

> it’s not valued at trillions

Fair, it's only $852 billion. Nowhere near trillions.. you got me.

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

#459

Post by dijit »

GardenLetter27 wrote: post #401
dijit wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is personal preference, and perhaps I am more fiscally conservative because I grew up in poverty. But if I own 49% of a company and that company has more hype than product, hasn't found its market yet but is valued at trillions? I'm going to sell percentages of that to build my war chest for things that actually hit my bottom line. The "moonshot" has for all intents and purposes been achieved based on the…

It's not hype, the demand for inference has grown more this year than expected.

If I buy oranges for $1 and sell them for $0.50 and I sell a lot of oranges, can I reasonably say that I've found a market?

Hrm..

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

#460

Post by petre »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #426
wg0 wrote: post #413

A wise man from Google said in an internal memo to the tune of: "We do not have any moat neither does anyone else." Deepseek v4 is good enough, really really good given the price it is offered at. PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive AI models are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes and their code output MUST be reviewed carefully so Deepseek v4 is not any different either, it too is just a random token…

Can Deepseek answer probing questions about Winnie the Pooh?

Yeah, I specifically asked it about it. It seemed less censored than Gemini, back when it appeared and the latter was quite useless.
Post reply on HN