Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 496 posts

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#231

Post by embedding-shape »

alterom wrote: post #211
embedding-shape wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't it always the explicit goal of OpenAI to bring up AGI? So less of a meme, and more "this is what that company exists for". Bit like blaming a airplane building company for building airplanes, it's literally what they were created for, no matter how stupid their ideas of the "ideal aircraft" is.

>Bit like blaming a airplane building company for NOT building airplanes FTFY. OpenAI has not built AGI (not yet , it you want to be optimistic). If you really need an analogy, it's more in the vein of giving SpaceX crap for yapping about building a Dyson Sphere Real Soon Now™ .

Of course not, then we'd never hear the end of it :)

I was just informing that the company always had AGI as a goal, even when they were doing the small Gym prototypes and all of that stuff that made the (tech) news before GPT was a thing.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#232

Post by k9294 »

danans wrote: post #97

> Once AGI is declared by OpenAI ... I think it's funny and telling that they've used the word "declare" where what they are really doing is "claim". These guys think they are prophets.

They have a definition actually) “When AI generates $100 billion in profits” it will be considered an AGI. This term was defined in their previous partnership, not sure if it's still holds after the restructuring.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#233

Post by alterom »

whynotminot wrote: post #163
quirkot wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "G" part of AGI implies it should be able to hit all the arbitrary yard sticks

That is stupid. It would be possible to be infinitely arbitrary to the point of “AGI” never being reachable by some yard sticks while still performing most viable labor.

>It would be possible to be infinitely arbitrary to the point of “AGI” never being reachable by some yard sticks while still performing most viable labor.

"Most viable labor" involves getting things from one place to another, and that's not even the hard part of it.

In any case, any sane definition of general AI would entail things that people can generally do.

Like driving.

>That is stupid

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#234

Post by JoelMcCracken »

airstrike wrote: post #143
crazygringo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people didn't think we were anywhere close to LLM's five years ago. The capabilities we have now were expected to be a decades away, depending on who you talked to. [EDIT: sorry, I should have said 10 years ago... recent years get too compressed in my head and stuff from 2020 still feels like it was 2 years ago!] So I think a lot of people now don't see what the path is to AGI, but also realize they hadn't seen…

Notwithstanding the fact that AGI is a significantly higher bar than "LLM", this argument is illogical. Nobody thought we were anywhere closer to me jumping off the Empire State Building and flying across the globe 5 years ago, but I'm sure I will. Wish me luck as I take that literal leap of faith tomorrow.

what's super weird to me is how people seem to look at LLM output and see:

"oh look it can think! but then it fails sometimes! how strange, we need to fix the bug that makes the thinking no workie"

instead of:

"oh, this is really weird. Its like a crazy advanced pattern recognition and completion engine that works better than I ever imagined such a thing could. But, it also clearly isn't _thinking_, so it seems like we are perhaps exactly as far from thinking machines as we were before LLMs"

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#235

Post by bobbyprograms »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #79

> Once AGI is declared by OpenAI, that declaration will now be verified by an independent expert panel. > Microsoft’s IP rights for both models and products are extended through 2032 and now includes models post-AGI, with appropriate safety guardrails. Does anyone really think we are close to AGI? I mean honestly?

We already reached AGI. Why is anyone saying otherwise?

AGI is when the system can train itself which we have already proven.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#236

Post by cmiles74 »

gehwartzen wrote: post #156
no_wizard wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’ll devalue the term into something that makes it so. The common conception of it however, no I don’t believe we are anywhere close to it. It’s no different than how they moved the goalpost on the definition of AI at the start of this boom cycle

This is exactly why they will have an “expert panel” to make that determination. They wouldn’t make something up

I expect that the "expert panel" is to ensure that OpenAI and Microsoft are in agreement on what "AGI" means in the context of this agreement.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#237

Post by davey48016 »

_2d30 wrote: post #84
onion2k wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not savvy on investment terms, but most of these bullet points seem like a loss for Microsoft. Having a customer locked in to buying $250bn of Azure services is a fairly big benefit.

MSFT had a right to compute exclusivity. "Microsoft will no longer have a right of first refusal to be OpenAI’s compute provider." Seems like a loss to me!

I assume that first refusal required price matching. If the $250B is at a higher price than whatever AWS, GCP, etc. were willing to offer, then it could be a win for Microsoft to get $250B in decent margin business over a larger amount of break even business.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#238

Post by dreamcompiler »

crazygringo wrote: post #129
philipwhiuk wrote: post #79

> Once AGI is declared by OpenAI, that declaration will now be verified by an independent expert panel. > Microsoft’s IP rights for both models and products are extended through 2032 and now includes models post-AGI, with appropriate safety guardrails. Does anyone really think we are close to AGI? I mean honestly?

Most people didn't think we were anywhere close to LLM's five years ago. The capabilities we have now were expected to be a decades away, depending on who you talked to. [EDIT: sorry, I should have said 10 years ago... recent years get too compressed in my head and stuff from 2020 still feels like it was 2 years ago!] So I think a lot of people now don't see what the path is to AGI, but also realize they hadn't seen…

In 1900 we didn't see a viable path to climb Mount Everest or to go to the moon. This does not make the two tasks equally difficult.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#239

Post by JoelMcCracken »

fadedsignal wrote: post #162
crazygringo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people didn't think we were anywhere close to LLM's five years ago. The capabilities we have now were expected to be a decades away, depending on who you talked to. [EDIT: sorry, I should have said 10 years ago... recent years get too compressed in my head and stuff from 2020 still feels like it was 2 years ago!] So I think a lot of people now don't see what the path is to AGI, but also realize they hadn't seen…

I don't think AGI will happen with LLMs. For example, can an LLM drive a car?? I know it's a silly question but it's a fact.

this is something I think about. state of the art in self driving cars still makes mistakes that humans wouldn't make, despite all the investment into this specific problem.

This bodes very poorly for AGI in the near term, IMO

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#240

Post by whynotminot »

alterom wrote: post #233
whynotminot wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is stupid. It would be possible to be infinitely arbitrary to the point of “AGI” never being reachable by some yard sticks while still performing most viable labor.

>It would be possible to be infinitely arbitrary to the point of “AGI” never being reachable by some yard sticks while still performing most viable labor. "Most viable labor" involves getting things from one place to another, and that's not even the hard part of it. In any case, any sane definition of general AI would entail things that people can generally do. Like driving. >That is stupid That's just, like, your op…

I had a friend who had his Tesla drive him from his driveway in another city 3+ hrs away to my driveway with no intervention.

I feel like everyone’s opinion on how self-driving is going is still rooted in 2018 or something and no one has updated.

Post reply on HN