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

461–470 of 915 posts

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

#461

Post by Pfhortune »

rotcev wrote: post #451
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.

Humans can be held accountable. States have not yet shown the will to hold anyone accountable for LLM failures.

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

#462

Post by SwellJoe »

I assume this is part of why Github Copilot is going to usage billing. The cheap/free models in Copilot were OpenAI models. e.g. the GPT-based Raptor Mini, which was counted toward usage limits at a 0 multiplier, so basically unlimited usage for Pro and Pro+.

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

#465

Post by [deleted] »

rotcev wrote: post #451
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.

[deleted]

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

#466

Post by p_stuart82 »

_jab wrote: post #13

This agreement feels so friendly towards OpenAI that it's not obvious to me why Microsoft accepted this. I guess Microsoft just realized that the previous agreement was kneecapping OpenAI so much that the investment was at risk, especially with serious competition now coming from Anthropic?

$250b committed to azure helps. especially when some of that is your own investment coming back.

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

#467

Post by wg0 »

rotcev wrote: post #451
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.

Looks like you either have not worked with any human or with an LLM otherwise arriving at such a conclusion is damn impossible.

The humans I did work with were very very bright. No software developer in my career ever needed more than a paragraph of JIRA ticket for the problem statement and they figured out domains that were not even theirs to being with without making any mistakes and rather not only identifying edge cases but sometimes actually improving the domain processes by suggesting what is wasteful and what can be done differently.

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

#468

Post by acdanger »

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?

If anyone has the original release still up and can post it somewhere that would be grand.

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

#469

Post by throw310822 »

wg0 wrote: post #467
rotcev wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looks like you either have not worked with any human or with an LLM otherwise arriving at such a conclusion is damn impossible. The humans I did work with were very very bright. No software developer in my career ever needed more than a paragraph of JIRA ticket for the problem statement and they figured out domains that were not even theirs to being with without making any mistakes and rather not only identifying edg…

> The humans I did work with [...] figured out domains that were not even theirs to being with without making any mistakes

Seriously? I would like to remind you that every single mistake in history until the last couple of years has been made by humans.

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

#470

Post by mortenjorck »

rotcev wrote: post #451
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.

Amusing and directionally correct, but as random next-thought generators connected to a conscious hypervisor with individual agency,* humanity still has a pretty major leg up on the competition.

*For some definitions of individual agency. Incompatiblists not included.

Post reply on HN