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

471–480 of 915 posts

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

#471

Post by freejazz »

AntiUSAbah wrote: post #356
freejazz wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I find them very helpful. I use gemini regularly for multiply things. I also believe that whatever code researchers and other non software engineers wrote before coding agents, were similiar shitty but took them a lot longer to write. Like do you know how many researchers need to do some data analysis and hack around code because they never learned programming? So so many. If they know how to verify their data (which…

I don't particularly care about coding and didn't weigh in on it. There is no dispute that people debate if it is effective at that. You can take that debate up with them, not me.

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

#472

Post by paodealho »

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.

As fallible as they may be, I've never had a next-thought generator recommend me glue as a pizza ingredient.

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

#473

Post by [deleted] »

csunoser wrote: post #390
philippta wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the recent Dwarkesh Podcast episode Jensen Huang (Nvidia) said that virtually nobody but Anthropic uses TPUs. How does that add up?

I am not sure what context Jensen said that. But midjourney uses tpu. Apple uses tpu. They are no other frontier labs that use it, but Google + Anthropic is 2 out of 3 frontier lab so..... You could reasonably say that "A majority of frontier labs uses TPU to train and serve their model."

[deleted]

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

#474

Post by freejazz »

ianm218 wrote: post #262
freejazz wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ilya Sutskever genuinely believed it Seems more like an incredibly embarrassing belief on his part than something I should be crediting.

If someone working on early computer networks thought they could scale up world wide and that soon everyone people would be launching trillion dollar companies on the internet you would have called that delusion right? He doesn't need to be right but it's not crazy at all to look at super human performance in DOTA and think that could lead to super human performance at general human tasks in the long run

"In the long run" is doing a tremendous amount of work for your response.

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

#475

Post by zapnuk »

windexh8er wrote: post #453
harvey9 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it subject to CCP censorship? Maybe.

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

US models align with our "average" (western) values. If we outsource thinking by using LLMs, why would we outsource it to an LLM that doesn't have our values encoded in it?

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

#476

Post by freejazz »

fragmede wrote: post #449
freejazz wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I've been told my job (litigation attorney) is about to be replaced for over 3 years now, has yet to come close.

What kind of litigation attorney? I've been working with a startup, and I want to invest in it, and for the paperwork for that, all the nitty gritty details; instead of spending $20k in lawyers and a whole bunch more time going back and forth with them as well, the four of us, me, their CEO, my AI, and their AI; we all sat in a room together and hashed it out until both of us were equally satisfied with the contract.…

Maybe ask your LLM what a litigator is, as it is not any of what you described as (not) involving your attorney in.

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

#477

Post by sfink »

SwellJoe wrote: post #457
DeathArrow wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nit: scientists have the same reasons to do so now, the same as ever. They just have additional reasons to not do so.

But even that distinction is only temporary, since we're determined to piss away any remaining research lead that draws people in.

Hopefully the next administration will work at actively reversing the damage, with incentives beyond just "we pinky-promise not to haul you at gunpoint to a concrete detention center and then deport you to Yemen".

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

#478

Post by lanstin »

paodealho wrote: post #472
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.

As fallible as they may be, I've never had a next-thought generator recommend me glue as a pizza ingredient.

No big brother or big sister?

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

#479

Post by vanviegen »

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…

I can't tell if you're joking..
Post reply on HN