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

481–490 of 915 posts

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

#481

Post by vanviegen »

Pfhortune wrote: post #461
rotcev wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive humans are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes, and their output MUST be reviewed carefully, so you’re not any different either. You’re just a random next-thought generator based on neuron firing distributions with no real thought process, trained on a few billion years of evolution like all other humans.

Humans can be held accountable. States have not yet shown the will to hold anyone accountable for LLM failures.

You're free to hold an LLM accountable in the exact same way: fire it if you don't like its work.

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

#482

Post by d--b »

wg0 wrote: post #413

A wise man from Google said in an internal memo to the tune of: "We do not have any moat neither does anyone else." Deepseek v4 is good enough, really really good given the price it is offered at. PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive AI models are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes and their code output MUST be reviewed carefully so Deepseek v4 is not any different either, it too is just a random token…

We can't rule out a new innovation that makes frontier models more relevant than deepseek in 6 months. Things evolve so fast.

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

#483

Post by lanstin »

SwellJoe wrote: post #457
DeathArrow wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Folks who make Deepseek, Qwen, GLM, MiniMax, Kimi and MiMo.

They're at the frontier of last year. They compete with Opus 4.5. They don't yet compete with current frontier models. They'll presumably catch up, there is no monopoly on talent held by the US. And, that's more true than ever now that the US is actively hostile to immigrants. Scientists who might have come to the US three years ago have little reason to do so now.

It's kind of hard to say this unless you go out of your way - the scaffolding for interacting with the raw model is a lot better now for many tasks. Is it that 4.7 is so much better than 4.5 or claude 1.119 is so much tuned to squeeze utility out of the LLM despite the hallucinations and lack of self awareness etc. Certainly the current products are great, but I think it's hard to separate the two things, the raw model and the agent workflow constraining the model towards utility.

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

#484

Post by pagutierrezn »

wg0 wrote: post #413

A wise man from Google said in an internal memo to the tune of: "We do not have any moat neither does anyone else." Deepseek v4 is good enough, really really good given the price it is offered at. PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive AI models are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes and their code output MUST be reviewed carefully so Deepseek v4 is not any different either, it too is just a random token…

>[LLMs are just] random token generator based on token frequency distributions with no real thought

... and who knows if we, humans, are not just merely that.

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

#485

Post by builderminkyu »

this just validates why building multi-model routing is the future. if even microsoft couldn't lock down openai with $13b, enterprise customers definitely shouldn't lock themselves into a single ecosystem. the orchestration layer is about to get so valuable.

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

#486

Post by jadbox »

wg0 wrote: post #413

A wise man from Google said in an internal memo to the tune of: "We do not have any moat neither does anyone else." Deepseek v4 is good enough, really really good given the price it is offered at. PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive AI models are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes and their code output MUST be reviewed carefully so Deepseek v4 is not any different either, it too is just a random token…

Deepseek v4, Qwen 3.6 Plus/Max, GLM 5+ are all pretty solid for most work.

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

#487

Post by bandrami »

d--b wrote: post #482
wg0 wrote: post #413

A wise man from Google said in an internal memo to the tune of: "We do not have any moat neither does anyone else." Deepseek v4 is good enough, really really good given the price it is offered at. PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive AI models are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes and their code output MUST be reviewed carefully so Deepseek v4 is not any different either, it too is just a random token…

We can't rule out a new innovation that makes frontier models more relevant than deepseek in 6 months. Things evolve so fast.

Equally you can't rule out innovation that makes deepseek more relevant than American models

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

#488

Post by AntiUSAbah »

mort96 wrote: post #447
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You state how you think and plan and have thoughts on how to do things etc. and i assumed you mention your way of thinking because you assume a LLM is not doing any of it. I showed than counter examples.

I don't think you showed counter examples? Or can you link me to a paper which describes a language model thinking without predicting tokens?

My second sentence references all these papers:

"COCONUT, PCCoT, PLaT and co are directly linked to 'thinking in latent space'. yann lecun is working on this too, we have JEPA now."

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

#489

Post by csa »

PKop wrote: post #424
PretzelPirate wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's like people are LARPing a Fortune company CEO when they're giving their hot takes on social media At least in large tech companies, they have mandatory social media training where they explicitly tell employees to use phrases like "my views are my own" to keep it clear whether they're speaking on behalf of their employer or not.

Why would they be speaking on behalf of their employer? That is what would need a disclaimer not the common case. Besides, he can put it one time in his profile, not over and over again in every comment like he does. There is no expectation that some random employee is a spokesperson for Google on tech message board comment threads. It's just a way to brag.

> Why would they be speaking on behalf of their employers?

Disclaimers aren’t there for folks who are thinking and acting rationally.

They are there for people who are thinking irrationally and/or manipulatively.

There are (relatively speaking) a lot of these people. They can chew up a lot of time and resources over what amounts to nothing.

Disclaimers like this can give a legal department the upper hand in cases like this

A few simple examples:

- There is a person I know who didn’t renew the contract of one of their reports. Pretty straightforward thing. The person whose contract was not renewed has been contesting this legally for over 10 years. The outcome is guaranteed to go against the person complaining, but they have time and money, so they tax the legal team of their former employer.

- There is a mid-sized organization that had a small legal team that had its plate full with regular business stuff. Despite settlements having NDAs, word got out that fairly light claims of sexual harassment and/or EEO complaints would yield relatively easy five-figure payments. Those complaints exploded, and some of the complaints were comical. For example, one manager represented a stance for the department to the C-suite that was 180 degrees opposite of what the group of three managers had agreed to prior. Lots of political capital and lots of time had to be used to clean up that mess. That person’s manager was accused of sex discrimination and age discrimination simply for asking the person why they did that (in a professional way, I might add). That person got a settlement, moved to a different department, and was effectively protected from administrative actions due to it being considered retaliation.

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

#490

Post by fwipsy »

wg0 wrote: post #467
rotcev wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PS: Just to be clear - even the most expensive humans are unreliable, would make stupid mistakes, and their output MUST be reviewed carefully, so you’re not any different either. You’re just a random next-thought generator based on neuron firing distributions with no real thought process, trained on a few billion years of evolution like all other humans.

Looks like you either have not worked with any human or with an LLM otherwise arriving at such a conclusion is damn impossible. The humans I did work with were very very bright. No software developer in my career ever needed more than a paragraph of JIRA ticket for the problem statement and they figured out domains that were not even theirs to being with without making any mistakes and rather not only identifying edg…

Holy shit, you've never worked with anyone who made ANY mistakes? You must be one of those 10x devs I hear about. Wow, cool, please stay away from my team.
Post reply on HN