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

461–470 of 496 posts

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#461

Post by senordevnyc »

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…

Honestly though, hundreds of billions of tokens per week really isn't that much. My tiny little profitable SaaS business that can't even support my family yet is doing 10-20 billion tokens per month on Gemini Flash 2.5.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#462

Post by Escapade5160 »

Microsoft invests in OpenAI, OpenAI agrees to spend 250b on azure compute. These companies are just sliding money back and forth to drive up their stock price. Just pulling money away from investors while taking very little risk themselves. It's literally a bubble.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#463

Post by nl »

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.

Note that most tests where they actually try to pass the Turing Test (as opposed to being a useful chatbot) they do things like prompt it with a personality etc.

eg: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10907317/

It's widely accepted that is has been passed. Eg Wikipeida:

> Since the mid-2020s, several large language models such as ChatGPT have passed modern, rigorous variants of the Turing test

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

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#464

Post by JohnnyMarcone »

hdkrgr wrote: post #147
_jab wrote: post #50

Many questioning why Microsoft would agree to this, but to me the concessions they made strike me as minor. > OpenAI remains Microsoft’s frontier model partner and Microsoft continues to have exclusive IP rights and Azure API exclusivity This should be the headline - Microsoft maintains its financial and intellectual stranglehold on OpenAI. And meanwhile, while vaguer, a few of the bullet points are potentially very…

As a corporate customer, the main point for me in this is Microsoft now retaining (non-exclusive) rights to models and products after OpenAI decides to declare AGI. The question "Can we build our stuff on top of Azure OpenAI? What if SamA pulls a marketing stunt tomorrow, declares AGI and cuts Microsoft off?" just became a lot easier. (At least until 2032.)

An independent panel has to declare agi now.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#465

Post by JohnnyMarcone »

_2d30 wrote: post #46
_2d30 wrote: post #36

Can anyone point me to whether or not the OAI non-profit holds voting control or not after the recapitalization? I've read this but it's extremely vague: https://openai.com/index/built-to-benefit-everyone/ As is this: https://openai.com/our-structure/ Especially so if the Non-profit foundation doesn't retain voting control, this remains the greatest theft of all time. I still can't quite understand how it should at a…

Nevermind, looks like the nn-profit gave up voting control lol: "All equity holders in OpenAI Group now own the same type of traditional stock that participates proportionally and grows in value with OpenAI Group’s success. The OpenAI Foundation board of directors were advised by independent financial advisors, and the terms of the recapitalization were unanimously approved by the board." Truly, truly the greatest th…

The non-profit controls the board of the for profit and can replace them at any time. They also serve in the for-profit board. This is according to the NY times article.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#466

Post by wrsh07 »

lm28469 wrote: post #314
wrsh07 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> Yes. Some ai skeptical people ... think gpt5 is AGI. It's a reverse Turing test at this point: "If you get tricked by an LLM to the point of believing it is AGI you're a clown"

I do not think Tyler Cowen is a clown, but I do not agree with elements of his understanding of AI

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#467

Post by gregw2 »

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.

This is a good thing.

We really really Really should Not define as our success function for AI (our future-overlords?) the ability of computers to deceive humans about what they are.

The Turing Test was a clever twist on (avoiding) defining intelligence 80 years ago.

Going forward, valuing it should be discarded post-haste by any serious researcher or engineer or message-board-philosopher, if not for ethical reasons then for not-promoting spam/slop reasons.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#468

Post by milkshakes »

torginus wrote: post #335
k9294 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a definition actually) “When AI generates $100 billion in profits” it will be considered an AGI. This term was defined in their previous partnership, not sure if it's still holds after the restructuring. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

That is a staggering number - if an engineer makes $100k per year, and let's say OpenAI can do a 20% profit margin on running an engineer-equivalent agent, that means it needs $600B profit or 6 million fully-equivalent engineer years. I think you can rebuild human civilization with that. I feel like replacing highly skilled human labor hardly makes financial sense, if it costs that much.

how much does an ai researcher make per year though?

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#469

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

margalabargala wrote: post #436
HPMOR wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No reason to believe it is a bubble

Lots of reasons to believe it's a bubble. No hard proof it's a bubble. Bubbles can only be proved to have existed after they pop.

I can prove soap-bubbles to exist by seeing them, long before they pop. Alternately one can blow them away, again without letting them pop.

Re: The next chapter of the Microsoft–OpenAI partnership

#470

Post by vntok »

yahoozoo wrote: post #424
vntok wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. When you're thinking about questions like these, it is useful to remember that multiple (probably dozens) professional A-grade lawyers have been paid considerable sums of actual money, by both sides, to think about possible loopholes and fix them.

What would you consider valid methods of generating $100 billion? Enough Max/Pro subscribers?

No. "Pro" subscriptions have nothing to do with AGI, my pet GPS tracker sells those.

We're talking about things that would make AGI recognizable as AGI, in the "I know it when I see it" sense.

So things we think about when the word AGI comes up: AI-driven commercial entity selling AI-designed services or products, AI-driven portfolio manager trading AI-selected stocks, AI-made movie going at the boxoffice, AI-made videogame selling loads, AI-won tournament prizes at computationally difficult games that the AI somehow autonomously chose to take part in, etc.

Most probably a combination of these and more.

Post reply on HN