The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

Post by charlie-83 » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 8:02 PM UTC

sigmar wrote: post #282

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-...

that's very different from OpenAI's previous definition (which was "autonomous systems that surpass humans in most economically valuable tasks") for at least one big reason: This new definition likely only triggers if OpenAI's AI is substantially different or better than other companies' AI. Because in a world where 2+ companies have similar AGI, both would have huge income but the competition would mean their profit…

Post by torginus » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 8:05 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #373

torginus wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can? If you use 'multimodal transformer' instead of LLM (which most SOTA models are), I don't think there's any reason why a transformer arch couldn't be trained to drive a car, in fact I'm sure that's what Tesla and co. are using in their cars right now. I'm sure self-driving will become good enough to be commercially viable in the next couple years (with some limitations), that doesn't mean it's AGI.

There is a vast gulf between "GPT-5 can drive a car" and "a neural network using the transformer architecture can be trained to drive a car". And I see no proof whatsoever that we can, today, train a single model that can both write a play and drive a car. Even less so one that could do both at the same time, as a generally intelligent being should be able to. If someone wants to claim that, say, GPT-5 is AGI, then i…

Post by ethbr1 » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 8:08 PM UTC

notepad0x90 wrote: post #125

mr_toad wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If, say, Microsoft is on a path towards decreasing relevance/marketshare/profitability That’s a big if. I see a lot of people in big enterprises who would never even consider anything other than Microsoft and Azure.

yeah, this is a take I see by people who work in unix like environments (including macs). If anything Microsoft will grow much bigger. People are consolidating in Azure and away from GCP. easier to manage costs and integrate with their fleet. Windows workstations and servers are now "joined" to Azure instead, where they used to be joined to domain controller servers. Microsoft will soon enough stop supporting that ol…

Post by ethbr1 » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 8:15 PM UTC

drusepth wrote: post #387

It seems really weird to me that such granular intercorporate details are made publicly available (in a blog post?). I've never had to publicly state things like this when making corporate partnerships. That makes me wonder how much of this post is crafted solely for PR...

   1. MS's accountants raised a warning
   2. Existing agreement prohibited disclosure of terms
   3. MS told OpenAI that wasn't acceptable and MS needed to publicly report details today
   4. OpenAI coordinated release of this, to spin the narrative

Post by godelski » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 8:18 PM UTC

Vinnl wrote: post #248

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.

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.