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

561–570 of 915 posts

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

#561

Post by pvorb »

fwipsy wrote: post #490
wg0 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're not, but all of their colleagues are.

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

#562

Post by Rover222 »

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…

This is just starting to feel like desperation, making this claim that SOC LLMs are random token generators with absolutely no possibility of anything above that. Keep shouting into the wind though.

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

#563

Post by bigyabai »

brcmthrowaway wrote: post #496
bigyabai wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPUs are bottom-barrel for compute-focused industries. It is mobile-grade hardware that arguably can't even scale to prior Mac Pro workloads. > The GPU is monstrously good. Depending on the workload, the M1 series GPU using 120W could beat an RTX 3090 using 420W. You're just listing the TDP max of both chips. If you limit a 3090 to 120W then it would still run laps around an M1 Max in several workloads despite be…

> The GPUs are bottom-barrel for compute-focused industries. It is mobile-grade hardware that arguably can't even scale to prior Mac Pro workloads. Surprised Apple didn't create a TPU-like architecture. Another misstep from John Gianneadrea.

I'm confused how anyone ever thought the NPU would be a good idea. The GPU is almost always underutilized on Mac and could do the brunt of the work for inference if it embraced GPGPU principles from the start. Creating a dedicated hardware block to alleviate a theoretical congestion issue is... bewildering. That goes for most NPUs I've seen.

Apple had the technology to scale down a GPGPU-focused architecture just like Nvidia did. They had the money to take that risk, and had the chip design chops to take a serious stab at it. On paper, they could have even extended it to iPhone-level edge silicon similar to what Nvidia did with the Jetson and Tegra SOCs.

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

#564

Post by TheFirstNubian »

lazide wrote: post #553
TheFirstNubian wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cr…

Subconsciously?!?

Lol! Wrong choice of word, maybe. I meant to say that we don’t seem to be putting much thought into how we’re outsourcing thinking to the LLMs.

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

#565

Post by teiferer »

rishabhaiover wrote: post #557
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…

> just a random token generator based on token frequency distributions with no real thought process I'm not smart enough to reduce LLMs and the entire ai effort into such simple terms but I am smart enough to see the emergence of a new kind of intelligence even when it threatens the very foundations of the industry that I work for.

> emergence of a new kind of intelligence

Curious about your definition of these terms.

Just because you are impressed by the capabilities of some tech (and rightfully so), doesn't mean it's intelligent.

First time I realized what recursion can do (like solving towers of hanoi in a few lines of code), I thought it was magic. But that doesn't make it "emergence of a new kind of intelligence".

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

#566

Post by taneq »

intrinsicallee wrote: post #501
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.

I'm still not sure what people declaring that they equate human cognition with large language models think they are contributing to the conversation when they do so. Nevermind the fact that they are literally able to introspect human cognition and presumably find non verbal and non linear cognition modes.

> Nevermind the fact that they are literally able to introspect human cognition and presumably find non verbal and non linear cognition modes.

Are they, though? Or are they just predicting their own performance (and an explanation of that performance) on input the same way they predict their response to that input?

Humans say a lot of biologically implausible things when asked why they did something.

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

#567

Post by shakna »

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…

I have worked with people like this frequently. The ones you're always happy to see on the team.

Also worked with people who were frustrated that they had to force push git to "save" their changes. Honestly, a token-box I can just ignore, would be an upgrade over this half of the team.

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

#568

Post by bigyabai »

jimbokun wrote: post #506
ethbr1 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apples and limes. The context of this thread isn't consumer chips, but Apple's analog to an H/B200.

Well Apple is in the consumer computing business.

TFA is literally about a B2B deal, not consumer compute.

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

#569

Post by manmal »

TheFirstNubian wrote: post #545
manmal wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cr…

I feel the industry moving away from the automated slop machine, and back to conscious design. Is that only my filter bubble? Dex, dax, the CEO of sentry, Mario (pi.dev) - strong voices, all declaring the last half year a fever dream we must wake up from.

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

#570

Post by taneq »

paodealho wrote: post #472
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.

As fallible as they may be, I've never had a next-thought generator recommend me glue as a pizza ingredient.

Are you making the pizza for eating or for menu photography? I seem to recall glue being used in menu photography ‘food’ a lot.
Post reply on HN