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

571–580 of 915 posts

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

#571

Post by zozbot234 »

bigyabai wrote: post #563
brcmthrowaway wrote: post #496

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. 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 lik…

I'm not sure even Apple thought that, given that they don't officially provide access to ANE internals under macOS (barring unsupported hacks). But if that was fixed, it could then be useful for improving the power efficiency of prefill, where the CPU/GPU hardware is quite weak (especially prior to the M5 Neural Accelerators).

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

#572

Post by HSO »

Art9681 wrote: post #511
bandrami wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

i predict you are going to have a very hard rest of your life, trying to cope with reality or reconcile what you see with what you "think"

tant pis

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

#573

Post by taneq »

jojomodding wrote: post #492
vanviegen wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Giving something that has no internal concept of time (or identity for that matter) a prison sentence of n years seems kinda ineffectual.

“Generate 100,000 tokens about why you feel bad.” :P

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

#574

Post by Rapzid »

dkrich wrote: post #45
_jab wrote: post #13

This agreement feels so friendly towards OpenAI that it's not obvious to me why Microsoft accepted this. I guess Microsoft just realized that the previous agreement was kneecapping OpenAI so much that the investment was at risk, especially with serious competition now coming from Anthropic?

Probably more that they are compute constrained. In his latest post Ben Thompson talks about how Microsoft had to use their own infrastructure and supplant outside users in the process so this is probably to free up compute.

I think it's this. They sell a crap ton of b2b inference through Azure and I'm sure this competes with resources needed for training.

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

#575

Post by encrux »

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.

Not really on topic anymore, but…

I keep wondering when this discussion comes up… If I take an apple and paint it like an orange, it’s clearly not an orange. But how much would I have to change the apple for people to accept that it’s an orange?

This discussion keeps coming up in all aspects of society, like (artificial) diamonds and other, more polarizing topics.

It’s weird and it’s a weird discussion to have, since everyone seems to choose their own thresholds arbitrarily.

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

#576

Post by wg0 »

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.

It's an illusion of intelligence. Just like when a non technical person saw the TV for the first time, he thought these people must be living inside that box.

He didn't know the 40,000 volt electron gun being bombarded on phosphorus constantly leaving the glow for few milliseconds till next pass.

He thought these guys live inside that wooden box there's no other explanation.

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

#577

Post by rishabhaiover »

teiferer wrote: post #565
rishabhaiover wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

A recent one is the RCA of a hang during PostgreSQL installation because of an unimplemented syscall (I work at a lab that deals with secure OS and sandboxes). If the search of the RCA was left to me, I would have spent 2-3 weeks sifting through the shared memory implementation within PostgeSQL but it only took me a night with the help of Opus 4.5.

To me, that's intelligence and a measurable direct benefit of the tool.

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

#578

Post by anabab »

trostaft wrote: post #273
lucaslazarus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty much a religious eschatology at this point

> eschatology From Wikipedia Eschatology (/ˌɛskəˈtɒlədʒi/; from Ancient Greek ἔσχατος (éskhatos) 'last' and -logy) concerns expectations of the end of present age, human history, or the world itself. I'm case anyone else is vocabulary skill checked like me

wiktionary is better for this usecase since it tends to have a richer coverage of various meanings

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

#579

Post by dpark »

mort96 wrote: post #533
dpark wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Perhaps I am wrong or overstating the belief that the Turing test would be sufficient. My recollection is that it was well regarded as a meaningful if not conclusive test.

> the Chinese room thought experiment

This is an interesting thought experiment but I think the “computers don’t understand” interpretation relies on magical thinking.

The notion that “systemic” understanding is not real is purely begging the question. It also ignores that a human is also a system.

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

#580

Post by topce »

I used both copilot and kiro copilot sonet 1 copilot opus 3

kiro sonet 1.3 kiro opus 2.2

IMHO lot of people will switch to kiro and or deep seek it look like AWS done best inference google is another big player , has model and also cloud byt my 2 cents form Cents on AWS

Post reply on HN