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

411–420 of 496 posts

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#411

Post by ethbr1 »

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…

> "Microsoft’s IP rights now exclude OpenAI’s consumer hardware."

Relevant and under-appreciated.

   1. OpenAI considers its consumer hardware IP serious enough to include in the agreement (and this post)
   2. OpenAI thinks it's enough of a value differentiator they'd rather go alone than through MS as a hardware partner
OpenAI wearable eyeglasses incoming... (audio+cellular first, AR/camera second?)

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#412

Post by bdangubic »

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?

in claude.md I have specific instructions not to check in code and in the prompt specifically wrote as critical to not check in code while check one failing tests. test failure was fixed, code was checked in, I’d say at least claude behaves exactly like humans :)

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#413

Post by ctoth »

some_furry wrote: post #227
gehwartzen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why they will have an “expert panel” to make that determination. They wouldn’t make something up

What exactly is the criteria for "expert" they're planning to use, and whomst among us can actually meet a realistic bar for expertise on the nature of consciousness?

Type error: why do you need an expert on consciousness to weigh in on if something is AGI or not? I don't care what it feels like to be a paperclip maximizer I just care to not have my paperclips maximized tnx.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#414

Post by Ylpertnodi »

richard_todd wrote: post #265

As a 1980's adventure game fan, I can only hope that whatever comes after AGI is called SCI. Maybe it could be "Soul-Crushing Intelligence". Once we don't need people to make stuff anymore, we need to re-do society so people can get access to all the stuff that's being made. I doubt we do a very good job of that. But otherwise, there's no point in making anything. I guess if we are lucky, the AI overlords will keep u…

Soma? A 'smartphone' will do it.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#415

Post by JoelMcCracken »

famouswaffles wrote: post #341
JoelMcCracken wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's super weird to me is how people seem to look at LLM output and see: "oh look it can think! but then it fails sometimes! how strange, we need to fix the bug that makes the thinking no workie" instead of: "oh, this is really weird. Its like a crazy advanced pattern recognition and completion engine that works better than I ever imagined such a thing could. But, it also clearly isn't _thinking_, so it seems like…

By that logic, I can conclude humans don't think, because of all the numerous times out 'thinking fails'. I don't know what else to tell you other than this infallible logic automaton you imagine must exist before it is 'real intelligence' does not exist and has never existed except in the realm of fiction.

You’re absolutely right!

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#416

Post by tsimionescu »

torginus wrote: post #404
tsimionescu wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> single model that can both write a play and drive a car. It would be a really silly thing to do, and probably there are engineering subletities as to why this would be a bad idea, but I don't see why you couldn't train a single model to do both.

It's not silly, it is in fact a clear necessity to have both of these for something to be even close to AGI. And you additionally need it trained on many other tasks - if you believe that each task requires additional parameters and additional training data, then it becomes very clear that we are nowhere near to a general intelligence system; and it should also be pretty clear that this will not scale to 100 tasks with anything similar to the current hardware and training algorithms.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#417

Post by umeshunni »

peterpans01 wrote: post #209
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 of the things that the public — even so-called “AI experts” — consider “magic” are still within the in-sample space. We are nowhere near the out-of-sample space yet. Large Language Models (LLMs) still cannot truly extrapolate. It’s somewhat like living in America and thinking that America is the entire world.

> It’s somewhat like living in America and thinking that America is the entire world.

Oh I have bad news for you...

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#418

Post by stackskipton »

eitally wrote: post #358
ml-anon wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch this week. Amazon cloud growth has been terrible (Google and Microsoft remains >30%). Amazon have basically no good offerings for AI which is where gcp is bringing to eat their lunch. Anthropic moving to TPU for inference is a big big signal.

100% this. The AWS of today is going to be the Hetzner or Digital Ocean of the future. They'll still have hyperscale, but will not be seen as innovating on first party products or a leader in the AI managed services industry. And frankly, they are currently doing a shit job of even this, because Oracle is in the same category and OCI has been eating everyone's lunch (for the past two years!).

Is OCI really eating everyone lunch? Sure, it's showing massive growth but that's because Oracle has been running around offering insane discounts.

We were cloud shopping, and they came by as well with REALLY good discount. Luckily our CTO was massively afraid of what would happen after that discount ran out.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#419

Post by HPMOR »

ForHackernews wrote: post #217
paxys wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is worth $4T, so if you buy one MSFT share only ~3% of that is invested in OpenAI. Even if OpenAI outperforms everyone's expectations (which at this point are already sky high), a tiny swing in some other Microsoft division will completely erase your gains.

Yeah, but on the plus side when the AI bubble bursts at least you've still got Excel.

No reason to believe it is a bubble

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#420

Post by baobun »

ossner wrote: post #52

> Once AGI is declared by OpenAI, that declaration will now be verified by an independent expert panel. What were they really expecting as an alternative? Anyone can "declare AGI" especially since it's an inherently ill-defined (and agruably undefinable) concept, it's strange that this is the first bullet point like this was the fruit of intensive deliberation. I don't fully understand what is going on in this market…

In context AGI is already clearly defined as $100billion USD revenue. So I guess the expert panel should at least have a finacial auditor.
Post reply on HN