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

281–290 of 915 posts

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

#281

Post by AndrewKemendo »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #268
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.

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…

There are those of us who have been into the AGI eschatology since the 90s after following in Kurzweil’s work.

so just understand there’s a lot of of us “insane” people out there and we’re making really insane progress toward the original 1955 AI goals.

We’re going to continue to work on this no matter what.

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

#282

Post by scottyah »

eieiw wrote: post #77
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They did not need to go so hard on the hype - Anthropic hasn’t in relative terms and is generating pretty comparable revenues at present OpenAI bet on consumers; Anthropic on enterprise. That will necessitate a louder marketing strategy for the former.

That’s funny. Why is it Altman is facing kill shots and Dario isn’t?

Dario is a lot more focused on enabling people with AI, Sam goes on interviews like he's Wormtongue trying to summon a "god". Then there is the whole "open"ai where he took it closed source for profit, the engineers kicking sama out but he wiggled back in (at the cost of a lot of the founding engineers), the suspicious death of a whistleblower, the crazy investment schemes of billions of dollars that he's hoping taxes will save him from, the immediate curtailing to Pete in the DoD, and a few other things that make him at least a highly questionable fellow.

Dario left OpenAI because of the bad he saw there, and made a superior product (though these things change very rapidly).

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

#283

Post by sho_hn »

jmward01 wrote: post #271
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #30

It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.

I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI. If you gave me CC in the 80's I would probably have called it 'alive' since it clearly passes the Turing test as I understood it then (I wouldn't have been able to distinguish it from a person for most conversations). Now every time it gets better we push that definition further and every crack we open to a chasm and declare that it isn't close. At the same time there ar…

> I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI

Isn't that exactly what you would expect to happen as we learn more about the nature and inner workings of intelligence and refine our expectations?

There's no reason to rest our case with the Turing test.

I hear the "shifting goalposts" riposte a lot, but then it would be very unexciting to freeze our ambitions.

At least in an academic sense, what LLMs aren't is just as interesting as what they are.

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

#284

Post by hamdingers »

computerphage wrote: post #280
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #30

It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.

Show me a graph of your javelin skill doubling every six months and I'll start asking myself if you'll be the next champion

I could easily make that graph a reality and sustain that pace for a couple years, considering I'm starting from 0 javelin skill.

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

#285

Post by sn0wr8ven »

jmward01 wrote: post #271
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #30

It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.

I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI. If you gave me CC in the 80's I would probably have called it 'alive' since it clearly passes the Turing test as I understood it then (I wouldn't have been able to distinguish it from a person for most conversations). Now every time it gets better we push that definition further and every crack we open to a chasm and declare that it isn't close. At the same time there ar…

I don't think the goalpost has been shifted for AGI or the definition of AGI that is used by these corporations. It's just they broke it down to stages to claim AGI achieved. It was always a model or system that surpasses human capabilities at most tasks/being able to replace a human worker. The big companies broke it down to AGI stage 1, stage 2, etc to be able to say they achieved AGI.

The Turing Test/Imitation Game is not a good benchmark for AGI. It is a linguistics test only. Many chatbots even before LLMs can pass the Turing Test to a certain degree.

Regardless, the goalpost hasn't shifted. Replacing human workforce is the ultimate end goal. That's why there's investors. The investors are not pouring billions to pass the Turing Test.

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

#286

Post by aurareturn »

Melatonic wrote: post #267
aurareturn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do we have proof that it's cheaper in terms of $/token/intelligence?

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

#287

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

wongarsu wrote: post #148
karmasimida wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. If you present GPT 5.5 to me 2 years ago, I will call it AGI.

It performs at a usable level across a wide range of tasks. I'm not sure about two years ago, but ten years ago we would have called it an AGI. As opposed to "regular AI" where you have to assemble a training set for your specific problem, then train an AI on it before you can get your answers. Now our idea of what qualifies as AGI has shifted substantially. We keep looking at what we have and decide that that can't…

No one who read science fiction in 1955 would call any of the various models we know to be "artificial intelligence". They would be impressed with it, even excited at first that it was that... until they'd had a chance to evaluate it.

Science fiction from that era even had the concept of what models are... they'd call it an "oracle". I can think of at least 3 short stories (though remembering the authors just isn't happening for me at the moment). The concept was of a device that could provide correct answers to any question. But these devices had no agency, were dependent on framing the question correctly, and limited in other ways besides (I think in one story, the device might chew on a question for years before providing an answer... mirroring that time around 9am PST when Claude has to keep retrying to send your prompt).

We've always known what we meant by artificial intelligence, at least until a few years ago when we started pretending that we didn't. Perhaps the label was poorly chosen (all those decades ago) and could have a better label now (AGI isn't that better label, it's dumber still), but it's what we're stuck with. And we all know what we mean by it. We all almost certainly do not want that artificial intelligence because most of us are certain that it will spell the doom of our species.

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

#288

Post by Zambyte »

jmward01 wrote: post #271
delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #30

It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.

I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI. If you gave me CC in the 80's I would probably have called it 'alive' since it clearly passes the Turing test as I understood it then (I wouldn't have been able to distinguish it from a person for most conversations). Now every time it gets better we push that definition further and every crack we open to a chasm and declare that it isn't close. At the same time there ar…

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

The truth is, we have had AGI for years now. We even have artificial super intelligence - we have software systems that are more intelligent than any human. Some humans might have an extremely narrow subject that they are more intelligent than any AI system, but the people on that list are vanishing small.

AI hasn't met sci-fi expectations, and that's a marketing opportunity. That's all it is.

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

#289

Post by mekael »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #30

It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.

I’m most likely going to be downvoted, but Tofutti Cuties are absolutely delicious vegan ice cream bars. And i’d consume one in celebration of your accomplishment.

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

#290

Post by Oras »

marricks wrote: post #225
Oras wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MS put 10B for 50% if I remember correctly. OpenAI is worth many multiples of that.

> OpenAI is worth many multiples of that valued at --which I'd say is a reasonable distinction to make right about now

Their revenue is 20B, so they still worth multiples of 10B regardless of valuation even if you consider the basic 5x revenue valuation

https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-cfo-says-annualized-...

Post reply on HN