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

291–300 of 496 posts

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#291

Post by energy123 »

deaux wrote: post #191
energy123 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They perform similarly on benchmarks, which can be fudged to arbitrarily high numbers by just including the Q&A into the training data at a certain frequency or post-training on it. I have not been impressed with any of the DeepSeek models in real-world use.

General data: hundreds of billions of tokens per week are running through Deepseek, Qwen, GLM models solely by those users going through OpenRouter. People aren't doing that for laughs, or "non-real-world use", that's all for work and/or prod. If you look at the market share graph, at the start of the year the big 3 OpenAI/Anthropic/Google had 72% market share on there. Now it's 45%. And this isn't just because of Gr…

Because it's significantly cheaper. It's on the frontier at the price it's being offered, but they're not competitive in the high intelligence & high cost quadrant.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#292

Post by butler533 »

notatoad wrote: post #254
butler533 wrote: post #247

Why do none of OpenAI announcements have an author attributed to them? Are people that ashamed of working there, they don't even want to attach their name to the work? I guess I would be, too.

because they're corporate PR statements drafted by a team, and corporate press releases don't normally have an author byline

Wrong

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/

https://blog.google/

Lol, even Apple has authors listed https://www.apple.com/newsroom/

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#293

Post by layer8 »

wrsh07 wrote: post #207
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?

Yes. Some ai skeptical people (eg Tyler Cowen, who does not think AI will have a significant economic impact) think gpt5 is AGI. It was news when dwarkesh interviewed Karpathy who said per his definition of AGI, he doesn't think it will occur until 2035. Thus, if karpathy is pessimistic, then many people working in AI today think we will have agi by 2032 (and likely sooner, eg end of 2028)

2035 is still optimistic at present, IMO, because AGI will require breakthroughs that are impossible to predict.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#294

Post by r_lee »

yndoendo wrote: post #287
Vinnl wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Turing Test has been passed. The test was setup such that the interrogator knew that one of the two participants was a bot, and was trying to find out which. As far as I know, it's still relatively easy to find out you're talking to an LLM if you're actively looking for it.

I find there are to main ways to do this. 1) Look for spelling, grammar, and incorrect word usage; such as where vs were, typing out where our should be used. 2) Ask asinine questions that have no answers; _Why does the sun ravel around my finger in low quality gravity while dancing in the rain?_ ML likes to always come up with an answers no matter what. Human will shorten the conversation. It also is programmed to r…

Overall I'd say the easiest is just overall that the models always just follow what you say and transform it into a response. They won't have personal opinions or experiences or anything, although they can fake it. it's all just a median expected response to whatever you say.

And the "agreeability" is not a hallucination, it's simply the path of least resistance, as in, the model can just take information that you said and use that to make a response, not to actually "think" and consider I'd what you even made sense or I'd it's weird or etc.

They almost never say "what do you mean?" to try to seek truth.

This is why I don't understand why some here claim that AGI being already here is some kind of coherent argument. I guess redefining AGI is how we'll reach it

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#295

Post by layer8 »

jplusequalt wrote: post #60
healsdata wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The two companies reportedly signed an agreement [in 2023] stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

A sufficiently large profit margin is what constitutes AGI? What a fucking joke.

“Only” means that it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#296

Post by joomla199 »

dagss wrote: post #149
cogman10 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And because it's become apparent that LLMs aren't converging on what's traditionally been understood as AGI. The promise of AGI is that you could prompt the LLM "Prove that the Riemann Hypothesis is either true or false" and the LLM would generate a valid mathematical proof. However, if you throw it into ChatGPT what you actually get is "Nobody else has solved this proof yet and I can't either." And that's the issue.…

When I ask Claude to debug something it goes through more or less the same steps I would have done to fine the bug. Add some logging, run tests, try an hypothesis... Until LLMs got popular, we would have called that reasoning skills. Not surpassing humans but better than many humans within a small context. I don't mean that I have a higher opinion about LLM intelligence than you do, but perhaps I have a lower opinion…

Did you read the whole thread and all of your own comment each time you had to type another half-word? If not, I’m afraid your first statement doesn’t hold.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#297

Post by llelouch »

empath75 wrote: post #23
cjbarber wrote: post #6

> Once AGI is declared by OpenAI, that declaration will now be verified by an independent expert panel. I wonder what criteria that panel will use to define/resolve this.

It's quite possible that GI and thus AGI does not actually exist. Though now the paper the other day by all those heavy hitters in the industry makes more sense in this context.

what paper?

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#298

Post by [deleted] »

interactivecode wrote: post #24
anonymous908213 wrote: post #8

> AGI AGI AGI AGI AGI AGI AGI AGI AGI Spare me. Sam has been talking about ChatGPT already being AGI for ages, meanwhile still peddling this duplicitous talk about how AGI is coming despite it apparently already being here. Can we act like grownups and treat this like a normal tool? No, no we cannot, for Sam is a hype merchant.

Sam is doing the same playbook Elon used Tesla's full self-driving dreams

[deleted]

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#299

Post by jimbokun »

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?

Who knows?

I don't see any way to define it in an easily verifiable way.

Pretty much any test you could devise, others will be able to point out ways that it's inadequate or doesn't capture aspects of human intelligence.

So I think it all just comes down to who is on the panel.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#300

Post by saaaaaam »

yousif_123123 wrote: post #284
saaaaaam wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the company valued at $500 billion or is the sum of the digital assets they’ve collateralised worth $500 billion? Because if you buy the tokens you presumably do not own the company. And if you buy the company you hopefully don’t own the tokens - nor the assets that back the tokens.

I think I read that its valued at 500 billion based on their latest fund raise. I don't know the total holdings they have. I have no interest in crypto, just wanted to mention this which was surprising to me when I heard it.

Wow, yes they claim to be raising a round valuing them at $500bn. Which is crazy given the market cap of their token is only apparently $173bn.

https://www.reuters.com/business/crypto-firm-tether-eyes-500...

I struggle to see how those numbers stack up.

Post reply on HN