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

531–540 of 915 posts

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

#531

Post by PKop »

eklavya wrote: post #522
PKop wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. There is no scenario where we should expect some random anon to be speaking for Google. When that is the case a disclaimer is warranted, not the common case of speaking for oneself. He can write it once in his profile if he's so worried about it, not every other comment like he does. It's just inflated self importance

You seem smart and knowledgeable. Maybe you should reach the lawyers at these companies and then they can change the policy!

No I think it's made up, there is no policy, and the lawyers couldn't care less, it's just something people do to massage their own ego.

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

#532

Post by lumost »

This sounds like an issue where the hyperscalers are acknowledging that the new Foundation model firms may in fact be worth more than they are. Anthropic looks increasingly likely to exceed AWS revenue next year, and OpenAI will likely do the same with Azure.

3 years ago a Foundation model seemed like a feature of a hyper scaler, now hyper scalers look like part of the supply chain.

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

#533

Post by mort96 »

dpark wrote: post #520
mort96 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ac…

> Ten years ago most scientists would probably have agreed that The Turing Test was sufficient but the goalposts shifted when ChatGPT passed that.

The popularity of, and lack of consensus on, the Chinese room thought experiment kind of implies that this is wrong? I don't think many scientists (or, more relevantly, philosophers of mind) would, even 10 years ago, have said, "if a computer is able to fool a human into thinking it's a human, then the computer must possess a general intelligence".

Even Turing's perspective was, from what I understand, that we must avoid treating something that might be sentient as a machine. He proposed that if a computer is able to act convincingly human, we ought to treat it as if it is a human, not because it must be a conscious being but because it might be.

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

#534

Post by vharish »

GorbachevyChase wrote: post #365
maxclark wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And almost by happenstance Apple. Turns out they have a great platform for inference and torched almost nothing comparatively on Siri. The Apple/Gemini deal is interesting, Google continues to demonstrate their willingness to degrade their experience on Apple to try and force people to switch.

They also degrade their own direct services with little warning or thought put into change management, so, to be fair, Apple may be getting the same quality of service as the rest of us.

I think that's just how Google is, by nature. They don't intentionally degrade their services. They just aren't a customer centric company. They run on numbers. As a corporate, it doesn't really encourage support and maintenance work either.

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

#536

Post by etempleton »

This strikes me as a pullback by Microsoft. Coupled with some of the other news coming out of Microsoft it appears they are hoping to have "good enough" AI in their products. I think Microsoft knows they can win a lot of business customers by bundling with Office 365.

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

#537

Post by kibae »

KronisLV wrote: post #521
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 is good enough, really really good given the price it is offered at. Do they have monthly subscriptions, or are they restricted to paying just per token? It seems to be the latter for now: https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing/ Really good prices admittedly, but having predictable subscriptions is nice too!

[flagged]

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

#538

Post by etempleton »

lesuorac wrote: post #318
snek_case wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The metaverse is another example if anyone doubts the bounds of corporate stupidity.

Why? FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]). The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not be…

Naming your company off a product that doesn't really exist yet and then ultimately fails is a pretty crazy and stupid thing to do. A bit cart before horse.

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

#539

Post by senordevnyc »

dijit wrote: post #458
senordevnyc wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not more hype than product, it has found a market (making many billions in revenue), and it’s not valued at trillions. So wrong on all counts.

> It’s not more hype than product, it has found a market (making many billions in revenue) Speculation based on selling at below cost. > it’s not valued at trillions Fair, it's only $852 billion. Nowhere near trillions.. you got me.

Inference is quite profitable, so wrong again.

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

#540

Post by tokioyoyo »

etempleton wrote: post #536

This strikes me as a pullback by Microsoft. Coupled with some of the other news coming out of Microsoft it appears they are hoping to have "good enough" AI in their products. I think Microsoft knows they can win a lot of business customers by bundling with Office 365.

Watch them make a deal with Anthropic.
Post reply on HN