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

301–310 of 496 posts

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#301

Post by throwup238 »

sekai wrote: post #108
cjbarber wrote: post #14

> Microsoft holds an investment in OpenAI Group PBC valued at approximately $135 billion, representing roughly 27 percent on an as-converted diluted basis It seems like Microsoft stock is then the most straightforward way to invest in OpenAI pre-IPO. This also confirms the $500 billion valuation making OpenAI the most valuable private startup in the world. Now many of the main AI companies have decent ownership by pu…

> This also confirms the $500 billion valuation making OpenAI the most valuable private startup in the world. SpaceX?

If SpaceX is still a “startup”, the word has lost all meaning.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#302

Post by stevenpetryk »

r_lee wrote: post #294
yndoendo wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

I agree with your points in general but also, when I plugged in the parent comment's nonsense question, both Claude 4.5 Sonnet and GPT-5 asked me what I meant, and pointed out that it made no sense but might be some kind of metaphor, poem, or dream.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#303

Post by chrsw »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #283
SirMaster wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't it mean all jobs? If there are jobs it can't replace then that doesn't sound very generally intelligent. If it's got general intelligence it should be able to learn to do any job, no?

I think that somewhat depends on your definition. For example an AGI AI could give you a detailed plan that tells you exactly how to do any and every task. But it might not be able to actually do the task itself, for example manual labor jobs for which an AI simply cannot do unless it also "builds" itself a form-factor to be able to do the job. The AGI could also just determine that it's cheaper to hire a human than…

I think might even be simpler than that. It's about the cost. Nobody is going to pay for AI to replace humans if it costs more.

All of us in this sub-thread consider ourselves "AGI", but we cannot do any job. In theory we can, I guess. But in practical terms, at what cost? Assuming none of us are truck drivers, if someone was looking for a truck driver, they wouldn't hire us because it take too long for us to get a license, certified, learn, etc. Even though in theory we probably do it eventually.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#304

Post by Workaccount2 »

r_lee wrote: post #290
dr_dshiv wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Moving the goalposts” in AI usually means the opposite of devaluing the term. Peter Norvig (former research director at Google and author of the most popular textbook on AI) offers a mainstream perspective that AGI is already here: https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... If you described all the current capabilities of AI to 100 experts 10 years ago, they’d likely agree that the capabilities…

I don't see why anyone would consider the state of AI today to be AGI? it's basically a glorified generator stuck to a query engine today's models are not able to think independently, nor are they conscious or able to mutate themselves to gain new information on the fly or make memories other than half baked solutions with putting stuff in the context window which just makes it use that to generate stuff related to i…

For a long time the turing test was the bar for AGI.

Then it blew past that and now, what I think is honestly happening, is that we don't really have the grip on "what is intelligence" that we thought we had. Our sample size for intelligence is essentially 1, so it might take a while to get a grip again.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#305

Post by mandeepj »

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…

> Most people didn't think we were anywhere close to LLM's five years ago.

Well, Google had LLMs ready by 2017, which was almost 9 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#306

Post by gitremote »

wholinator2 wrote: post #253
nl wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they moved the goalpost on the definition of AI at the start of this boom cycle Who is this "they" you speak of? It's true the definition has changed, but not in the direction you seem to think. Before this boom cycle the standard for "AI" was the Turing test. There is no doubt we have comprehensively passed that now.

The turing test point is actually very interesting, because it's testing whether you can tell you're talking to a computer or a person. When Chatgpt3 came out we all declared that test utterly destroyed. But now that we've had time to become accustomed and learn the standard syntax, phraseology, and vocabulary of the gpt's, I've started to be able to detect the AI's again. If humanity becomes completely accustomed to…

> When Chatgpt3 came out we all declared that test utterly destroyed.

No, I did not. I tested it with questions that could not be answered by the Internet (spatial, logical, cultural, impossible coding tasks) and it failed in non-human-like ways, but also surprised me by answering some decently.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#307

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

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?

why not?

seems like the entire US tech economy is putting their resources into this goal.

i can see it happening soon if it hasn't already

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#308

Post by vntok »

hylaride wrote: post #214
yahoozoo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they can just introduce ads in ChatGPT responses, make $100 billion, and call that AGI?

Don't worry, it'll be relevant ads, just like google. You're going to love when code output is for proprietary libraries and databases and getting things the way you want will involve annoying levels of "clarification" that'll be harder and harder to use. I kind of meant this as a joke as I typed this, but by the end almost wanted to quit the tech industry all together.

Just download a few SOTA (free) open-weights models well ahead of that moment and either run them from inside your living-room or store them onto a (cheap) 2TB external hard drive until consumer compute makes it affordable to run them from your living room.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#309

Post by zitterbewegung »

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?

AGI is just a marketing term right now and also p(doom). It looks great in the press though.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#310

Post by dfsegoat »

r_lee wrote: post #290
dr_dshiv wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Moving the goalposts” in AI usually means the opposite of devaluing the term. Peter Norvig (former research director at Google and author of the most popular textbook on AI) offers a mainstream perspective that AGI is already here: https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-... If you described all the current capabilities of AI to 100 experts 10 years ago, they’d likely agree that the capabilities…

I don't see why anyone would consider the state of AI today to be AGI? it's basically a glorified generator stuck to a query engine today's models are not able to think independently, nor are they conscious or able to mutate themselves to gain new information on the fly or make memories other than half baked solutions with putting stuff in the context window which just makes it use that to generate stuff related to i…

> nor are they...able to mutate themselves to gain new information on the fly

See "Self-Adapting Language Models" from a group out of MIT recently which really gets at exactly that.

https://jyopari.github.io/posts/seal

Post reply on HN