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

261–270 of 915 posts

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

#261

Post by [deleted] »

BloondAndDoom wrote: post #192
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.

People always over estimate the impact of technology because they dont Understand human aspect of many businesses. Will it eventually replaced or will the shape of these kind of work will be completely different in the future? That’s an easy yes, when is that future? That’s a big unknown, in my experience this kind of stuff takes at least a decade (and possibly more on this case) to make a big impact like replacing a…

[deleted]

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

#262

Post by ianm218 »

freejazz wrote: post #183
sourraspberry wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can read the leaked emails from the Musk lawsuit. At the very least, Ilya Sutskever genuinely believed it, even when they were just making a DOTA bot, and not for hype purposes. I know he's been out of OpenAI for a while, but if his thinking trickled down into the company's culture, which given his role and how long he was there I would say seems likely, I don't think it's all hype. Grand delusion, perhaps.

> 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

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

#263

Post by aleph_minus_one »

chaos_emergent wrote: post #236
weatherlite wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a great definition but it's also not a terrible one either. For an AI system to be able to do all or even most of the jobs in an economy it has to be well rounded in a way it still isn't today, meaning: reliability, planning, long term memory, physical world manipulation etc. A system that can do all of that well enough so it can do the jobs of doctors, programmers and plumbers is generally intelligent in my…

Yeah I think this is more coherent than people realize. Economically relevant knowledge work is things that humans find cognitively demanding. Otherwise they wouldn't be valued in the first place. It ties the definition to economic value, which I think is the best definition that we can conjure given that AGI is otherwise highly subjective. Economically relevant work is dictated by markets, which I think is the best…

> Economically relevant knowledge work is things that humans find cognitively demanding. Otherwise they wouldn't be valued in the first place.

Deep scientific discoveries are also cognitively demanding, but are not really valued (see the precarious work environment in academia).

Another point: a lot of work is rather valued in the first place because the work centers around being submissive/docile with regard to bullshit (see the phenomenon of bullshit jobs). You really know better, but you have to keep your mouth shut.

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

#264

Post by techpression »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #258
PurpleRamen wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They redefined AGI to be an economical thing, so they can continue making up their stories. All that talk is really just business, no real science in the room there.

It makes sense though. Humans are coherent to the economy based on their ability to perform useful work. If an AI system can perform work as well as or better than any human, than with respect to "anything any human has ever been willing to pay for", it is AGI. I don't get why HN commenters find this so hard to understand. I have a sense they are being deliberately obtuse because they resent OpenAI's success.

It doesn’t though, AGI have far greater implications than doing mundane work of today. Actual AGI would self improve, that in itself would change literally every single thing of human civilization, instead we are talking about replacing white collar jobs.

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

#265

Post by aleph_minus_one »

bena wrote: post #193
a2128 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Around the end of 2024, it was reported that OpenAI and Microsoft agreed that for the purposes of their exclusivity agreement, AGI will be achieved when their AI system generates $100 billion in profit: https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

So no human on Earth is intelligent by that metric.

> So no human on Earth is intelligent by that metric.

That's a relevent aspect of the AGI concept.

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

#267

Post by Melatonic »

aurareturn wrote: post #18
ZeroCool2u wrote: post #11

Interesting side effect of this is that Google Cloud may now be the only hype scaler that can resell all 3 of the labs models? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but that would be a notable development, and I don't see why Google would allow Gemini to be resold through any of the other cloud providers. Might really increase the utility of those GCP credits.

Might not be good for Gemini long term if Anthropic and OpenAI can and will sell in every cloud provider they can find but businesses can only use Gemini via Google Cloud.

Except Gemini might end up being far cheaper per token due to the infrastructure advantage

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

#268

Post by skippyboxedhero »

sourraspberry wrote: post #87
theplatman wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when i realized that sama isn't that much of an ai researcher, it became clearer that this is more akin to a group delusion for hype purposes than a real possibility

You can read the leaked emails from the Musk lawsuit. At the very least, Ilya Sutskever genuinely believed it, even when they were just making a DOTA bot, and not for hype purposes. I know he's been out of OpenAI for a while, but if his thinking trickled down into the company's culture, which given his role and how long he was there I would say seems likely, I don't think it's all hype. Grand delusion, perhaps.

Yes, all of the people involved live in a delusion bubble. Their economic and social existence depends, at this point, on making increasingly bombastic and eschatological claims about AGI. By the standards of normal human psychological function, these people are completely insane.

Definitely interesting to watch from the perspective of human psychology but there is no real content there and there never was.

The stuff around Mythos is almost identical to O1. Leaks to the media that AGI had probably been achieved. Anonymous sources from inside the company saying this is very important and talking about the LLM as if it was human. This has happened multiple times before.

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

#269

Post by chromacity »

weatherlite wrote: post #206
PurpleRamen wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They redefined AGI to be an economical thing, so they can continue making up their stories. All that talk is really just business, no real science in the room there.

It's not a great definition but it's also not a terrible one either. For an AI system to be able to do all or even most of the jobs in an economy it has to be well rounded in a way it still isn't today, meaning: reliability, planning, long term memory, physical world manipulation etc. A system that can do all of that well enough so it can do the jobs of doctors, programmers and plumbers is generally intelligent in my…

> It's not a great definition but it's also not a terrible one either. For an AI system to be able to do all or even most of the jobs in an economy

That's not the definition they have been using. The definition was "$100B in profits". That's less than the net income of Microsoft. It would be an interesting milestone, but certainly not "most of the jobs in an economy".

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

#270

Post by BoredPositron »

renticulous wrote: post #147
lucaslazarus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty much a religious eschatology at this point

Progess is generally salami slicing just as escalation in geopolitics. Not a step function. Russian Invasion - Salami Tactics | Yes Prime Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang

We need to stop pretending we can do the next step without a hardware tock. It's not happening with current Nvidia products.
Post reply on HN