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

511–520 of 915 posts

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

#511

Post by Art9681 »

bandrami wrote: post #487
d--b wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We can because the reality is that America has led in AI since the beginning and has had the best frontier models. It's not like some other country held the top spot for any given period of time. No one in Europe or China. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt if there was precedent. But the only logical position to take is the lead is widening and while most AI's will go over some threshold where it is good enough for most people, the actual frontier will remain firmly in American soil.

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

#512

Post by jimbokun »

ethbr1 wrote: post #408
snek_case wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta's vision was worse than that. They were trying to hype doing work meetings in VR. There's a case to be made that VR games and VR universes can be fun... But work meetings?

Mark Zuckerberg using his company to build things he's the primary user for?

It worked when he wanted a system for ranking Harvard girls by appearance.

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

#513

Post by yieldcrv »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #426
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…

Can Deepseek answer probing questions about Winnie the Pooh?

It understands everything in thinking mode and will break down its rule system in adhering to Chinese regulation

So if you or anyone passing by was curious, yes you can get accurate output about the Chinese head of state and political and critical messages of him, China and the party

Its final answer will not play along

If you want an unfiltered answer on that topic, just triage it to a western model, if you want unfiltered answers on Israel domestic and foreign policy, triage back to an eastern model. You know the rules for each system and so does an LLM

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

#514

Post by dpark »

mort96 wrote: post #442
CamperBob2 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm telling you how these technologies work. When a language model isn't performing inference, it is not doing anything. A language model is a function which takes a token stream as input and produces a token probability distribution as output. By definition, there is no thinking outside of producing words. The function isn't running. If what you are saying is true, then LLMs wouldn't be able to handle out-of-distrib…

> If what you are saying is true, then LLMs wouldn't be able to handle out-of-distribution math problems without resorting to tool use. Yet they can. When you ask a current-generation model to multiply some 8-digit numbers, and forbid it from using tools or writing a script, it will almost certainly give you the right answer. That includes local models that can't possibly cheat. LLMs are stochastic, but they are not…

> Okay, what do you think language models are doing when they're not producing token probability distributions? What processes do you think are going on when the function which predicts a token isn't running?

What are you doing when you are not outputting tokens? You have a thought, evaluate it, refine it, repeat.

You’re not wrong that the basic building block is just “next token prediction”, but clearly the emergent behaviors exceed our intuition about what this process can achieve. We’re seeing novel proofs come out of these. Will this lead to AGI? That’s still TBD.

> I genuinely believe that a language model is, in essence, a function which takes in a sequence of tokens and produces a token probability distribution as an output. If this is incorrect, please, correct me.

The pejorative is that you imply this is a shallow and unthinking process. As I said earlier, you are literally a token generator on HN. You read someone’s comment, do some kind of processing, and output some tokens of your own.

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

#515

Post by dpark »

mort96 wrote: post #354
CamperBob2 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic Before you start typing, an fMRI machine can tell you which finger you'll lift first, before you know it yourself. We are not special. Consciousness is literally a continuous hallucination that we make up to explain what we do and what we think, after the fact. A machine can be trained to behave identically, but it's not clear if that's the best way forward or…

What's your argument? An fMRI can tell which finger I will lift first before that information makes its way to my consciousness, ergo next word prediction is sufficient for general intelligence? Do you hear yourself?

The statement is that your perception of your own cognition isn’t necessarily reality. That isn’t a statement that token prediction is sufficient for general intelligence. It’s a statement that your subjective experience is misleading you.

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

#516

Post by [deleted] »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #491
Pfhortune wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They are tools. You hold the human using it accountable. If that means it's the executive who signed the PO, so be it. Until LLM's I'd never in my life heard someone suggest we lock up the compiler when it goofs up and kills someone, but now because the compiler speaks English we suddenly want to let people use it as a get out of jail free card when they use it to harm others.

[deleted]

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

#517

Post by fragmede »

mort96 wrote: post #305
dpark wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your claim is that human intelligence is a next token predictor. Literally it is, at least in many of its forms. You accepted CamperBob2’s text as input and then you generated text as output. Unless you are positing that this behavior cannot prove your own general intelligence, it seems plain that “next token generator” is sufficient for AGI. (Whether the current LLM architecture is sufficient is a slightly differe…

Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic and decide on what I shall write in response. Due to the linear nature of time, typing necessarily happens one word at a time, but I am never producing a probability distribution of words (at least not in a way that my conscious self can determine), I consider an entire idea and then decide what tokens to enter into the computer in order to communicate the ide…

> I consider an entire idea and then decide what tokens to enter into the computer in order to communicate the idea to you.

This overestimates introspective access.

The brain is very good at producing a coherent story after the fact. Touch the hot stove and your hand moves before the conscious thought of "too hot" arrives. The hot message hits your spinal cord and you move before it reaches your brain. Your conscious mind fills in the rest afterwards.

I don't think that means that conscious thought is fake. But it does make me skeptical of the claim that we first possess a complete idea and only then does it serialize into words. A lot of the "idea" may be assembled during the act of expression, with consciousness narrating the process as if it had the whole thing in advance.

With writing, as in this comment, there's also a lot a backtracking and rewording that LLMs don't have the ability to do, so there's that.

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

#518

Post by kokanee »

rotcev wrote: post #451
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…

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.

I hate that I agree with you. But there's a difference between whether AI is as powerful as some say, and whether it's good for humanity. A cursory review of human history shows that some revolutionary technologies make life as a human better (fire, writing, medicine) and others make it worse (weapons, drugs, processed foods). While we adapt to the commoditization of our skills, we should also be questioning whether the technologies being rolled out right now are going to do more harm than good, and we should be organizing around causes that optimize for quality of life as a human. If we don't push for that, then the only thing we're optimizing for is wealth consolidation.

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

#519

Post by rvba »

mgol94 wrote: post #452
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can Deepseek answer probing questions about Winnie the Pooh?

What are you using LLMs for? To learn about world’s politics? Oh boy I have a news for you…

One of the first things I did when openAI came out was asking it "which active politican is a spy?" - and it was blocked from the start.

I asked early, at the time people were posting various jailbreaks, never worked.

On a side note, any self hosted model I can get for my PC? I have 96 GB of RAM.

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

#520

Post by dpark »

mort96 wrote: post #397
dpark wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am never producing a probability distribution of words (at least not in a way that my conscious self can determine) Inability to introspect your own word selections does not mean it’s meaningfully different from what an LLM does. There is plenty of evidence that humans do a lot of things that are not driven by conscious choice and we rationalize it after the fact. > I consider an entire idea and then decide what…

> Inability to introspect your own word selections does not mean it’s meaningfully different from what an LLM does. There is plenty of evidence that humans do a lot of things that are not driven by conscious choice and we rationalize it after the fact. This is correct and also completely irrelevant. I am describing what I experience, and describing how my experience seems very different to next token prediction. I th…

> I don't know enough about what makes up general intelligence to make this claim. I don't think you do either.

This is the fundamental issue. No one seems capable of defining general intelligence. Ten years ago most scientists would probably have agreed that The Turing Test was sufficient but the goalposts shifted when ChatGPT passed that.

If it’s not clear what AGI even means, it’s hard to say whether an LLM can achieve it, because it devolves into pointing out that an LLM is not a human.

Post reply on HN