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

321–330 of 915 posts

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

#321

Post by charcircuit »

sho_hn wrote: post #283
jmward01 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I would agree with you if we were talking about trying to replicate some form of general intelligence, but we are talking about creating artificial intelligence.

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

#323

Post by HWR_14 »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #232
HWR_14 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one with a small 401k is able to invest in OpenAI/Anthropic/etc. The people investing in those companies can afford to lose their investments.

"small" 401ks are usually made up of mutual funds. Those funds are run by investment banks (think Fidelity or JP Morgan) and they *absolutely* invest in companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. Your average middle class worker has investment money tied up in these crooks, but probably indirectly. When they piss away that money, it's not just rich jerks that are holding the bag.

401ks are run by investment banks and investment banks invest in OpenAI/Anthropic, but those aren't the same parts of the company in any meaningful way. The 401ks are in public companies or bonds.

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

#324

Post by AntiUSAbah »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #302
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not a statistical next word predictor. The 'predicting the next word' is the learning mechanism of the LLM which leads to a latent space which can encode higher level concepts. Basically a LLM 'understands' that much as efficient as it has to be to be able to respond in a reasonable way. A LLM doesn't predict german text or chinese language. It predicts the concept and than has a language layer outputting tokens.…

LLM proponents believe that these higher level encodings in latent space do in fact match the real world concepts described by our language(s). However, a much simpler explanation for what we see with LLMs is that instead the higher level encodings in latent space match only the patterns of our language(s), and no deeper encoding/understanding is present. It's Plato's Cave - the shadows on the wall are all an LLM eve…

Could be, yes for sure but I think it would be very naive in the current state of progress we are in, to down play what progress is happening.

At least Mythos model with its 10 Trillion parameter might indicate that the scaling law is valid. Its a little bit unfortunate that we still don't know that much more about that model.

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

#325

Post by latexr »

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.

> like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing

OpenAI and Microsoft do (did?) have a quantifiable definition of AGI, it’s just a stupid one that is hard to take seriously and get behind scientifically.

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

> The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. That’s far from the rigorous technical and philosophical definition of AGI many expect.

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

#326

Post by arkadiytehgraet »

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…

Sure, in the 80s after interacting with CC 1 time you would call it 'alive'. After having interacted with it for 5-10 minutes you would clearly see that it is as far from AGI as something more mundane as C compiler is.

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

#327

Post by alexdoesstuff »

It's kind of shocking, given financial transparency, that Microsoft gets away with not disclosing any details of this agreement (or the one it is replacing) to its shareholders. We know there's a cap on the revenue share from OpenAI to Microsoft, but we have no idea what that cap is (not whether it's higher, lower, or unchanged from the prior agreement).

We have no idea what it means to be the "primary cloud provider" and have the products made available "first on Azure". Does MSFT have new models exclusively for days, weeks, months, or years?

Both facts and more details from the agreement are quite frankly highly relevant to judge whether this is a net positive, negative or neutral for MSFT. It's unbelievable that the SEC doesn't force MSFT to publish at least an economic summary of the deal.

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

#328

Post by dbbk »

latexr wrote: post #325
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.

> like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing OpenAI and Microsoft do (did?) have a quantifiable definition of AGI, it’s just a stupid one that is hard to take seriously and get behind scientifically. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-... > The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at le…

I bet they were laughing their asses off when they came up with that. This is nonsensical.

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

#329

Post by _russross »

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…

Turing himself argued that trying to measure if a computer is intelligent is a fool's errand because it is so difficult to pin down definitions. He proposed what we call the "Turing test" as a knowable, measurable alternative. The first paragraph of his paper reads:

> I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin > with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think." The > definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use > of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words > "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used > it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the > question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such as > a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I > shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is > expressed in relatively unambiguous words.

Many people who want to argue about AGI and its relation to the Turing test would do well to read Turing's own arguments.

Post reply on HN