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

541–550 of 915 posts

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

#541

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#542

Post by emp17344 »

anthonyrstevens wrote: post #386
redox99 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Turing test ended up being kind of a flop. We basically passed it and nobody cared. That's because the turing test is about whether a machine can fool a human, not about its intelligent capabilities per se.

No, it's because certain people moved the goal posts. Nothing an LLM does or will do will make them belive that it's "intelligent" because they have a mental model of "intelligence" that is more religious than empirical.

We don’t have agents that are able to work entirely autonomously, even in the coding realm, which is where they seem to be most valuable. In fact, they’re seemingly not even close to replacing software engineers.

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

#543

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#544

Post by pimeys »

windexh8er wrote: post #453
harvey9 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it subject to CCP censorship? Maybe.

It's fun to pretend the US models have no censorship constraints.

I remember asking Gemini about that one famous 9/11 joke from late Norm MacDonald and it got really iffy about answering. Told it that hey I'm not american and in our culture it's not such a taboo.

But yes, they do have similar constraints.

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

#545

Post by TheFirstNubian »

manmal wrote: post #504
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…

I don’t think LLMs are that great at creating, however improved they have; I need to stay in the driver seat and really understand what’s happening. There’s not that much leverage in eliminating typing. However, for reviewing, I want the most intelligent model I can get. I want it to really think the shit out of my changes. I’ve just spent two weeks debugging what turned out to be a bad SQLite query plan (missing a r…

I’m a little conflicted on this, as I see a slippery slope here. LLMs in their current state (e.g., Opus-4.7) are really good in planning and one-shot codegen, which I believe is their primary use case. So they do provide enough leverage in that regard.

With this new workflow, however, we should, uncompromisingly, steer the entire code review process. The danger here, the “slippery slope,” is that we’re constantly craving for more intelligent models so we can somehow outsource the review to them as well. We may be subconsciously engineering ourselves into obsolescence.

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

#546

Post by lxxpxlxxxx »

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…

Can anybody cut meta off? I don't think you could mass market a device with no access to FB, IG or WS.

Maybe a niche product could do it, but good luck selling a laptop that won't open FB

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

#547

Post by etempleton »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #540
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.

It is possible! Anthropic is probably more in-line with the way Microsoft thinks about AI.

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

#548

Post by AntiUSAbah »

mort96 wrote: post #499
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

And it does this thinking without producing tokens?

yes.

Btw. just because you have to do something with the LLM to trigger the flow of information through the model, doesn't mean it can't think. It only means that we have to build an architecture around the model or build it into the models base architecture to enable more thinking.

We do not know how the brain architecture is setup for this. We could have sub agents or we can be a Mixture of Experts type of 'model'.

There is also work going on in combining multimodal inputs and diffusion models which look complelty different from a output pov etc.

If you look how a LLM does math, Anthropic showed in a blog article, that they found similiar structures for estimating numbers than how a brain does.

Another experiment from a person was to clone layers and just adding them beneth the original layer. This improved certain tasks. My assumption here is, that it lengthen and strengthen kind of a thinking structure.

But because using LLMs are still so good and still return relevant improvements, i think a whole field of thinking in this regard is still quite unexplored.

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

#550

Post by fragmede »

linhns wrote: post #296
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are throwing unheared amounts of money in AI and unseen compute. Progress is huge and fast and we barely started. If this progress and focus and resources doesn't lead to AI despite us already seeing a system which was unimaginable 6 years ago, we will never see AGI. And if you look at Boston Dynamics, Unitree and Generalist's progress on robotics, thats also CRAZY.

> And if you look at Boston Dynamics, Unitree and Generalist's progress on robotics Their progress is almost nought. Humanoids are stupid creations that are not good at anything in the real world. I'll give it to the machine dogs, at least they can reach corners we cannot.

> Their progress is almost nought.

How can you say the advancements since Honda's asimo robot amount to "almost naought"?

Post reply on HN