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

591–600 of 915 posts

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

#591

Post by zozbot234 »

devcpp wrote: post #586
wg0 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The lost jobs and the decrease in the demand for software engineers doesn't seem like an illusion. It might come back eventually but I wouldn't bet on it.

The jobs outlook in tech has nothing to do with AI, that's just an excuse. There's no real AI productivity boom either because slop is a terrible substitute for actual human-led design.

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

#592

Post by mrandish »

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".

> definition of these terms

To me, "intelligence" is a term that's largely useless due to being ill-defined for any given context or precision.

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

#593

Post by TheFirstNubian »

manmal wrote: post #569
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…

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.

That seems to be the general direction, at least from my daily dose of cope on X (Twitter). Regardless, conscious design will never go out of style.

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

#594

Post by naikrovek »

TheFirstNubian wrote: post #564
lazide wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some of us very much are, and we are ignored and/or attacked by people who don’t think about this quite often.

This is such an interesting time to be in. Truly skilled developers like Rob Pike really don’t like AI, but many professional developers love it. I side with Mr. Pike on it all.

I am not a skilled developer like he is, but I do like to think about what I’m doing and to plan for the future when writing code that might be part of that future. I like very simple code which is easy to read and to understand, and I try quite hard to use data types which can help me in multiple ways at once. The feeling when you solve a problem you’ve never solved before is indescribable, and bots strip all of that away from you and they write differently than I would.

I don’t think any bot would ever come up with something like Plan9 without explicit instructions, and that single example showcases what bots can’t do: think about what is appropriate when doing something new.

I don’t know what is right and what is wrong here, I just know that is an interesting time.

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

#595

Post by zozbot234 »

rishabhaiover wrote: post #577
teiferer wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 too…

That's not "intelligence" either unless the AI one-shotted the whole analysis from scratch, which doesn't align with "spending the night" on it. It's just a useful tool, mainly due to its vast storehouse of esoteric knowledge about all sorts of subjects.

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

#596

Post by throwatdem12311 »

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.

No you aren’t, clearly.

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

#597

Post by CamperBob2 »

wg0 wrote: post #576
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.

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.

I've had to adjust my priors about LLMs. Have you?

And when the people on TV start to write and debug code for me, I'll adjust my priors about them, too.

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

#598

Post by birdsink »

encrux wrote: post #575
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.

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…

I feel like these examples are all where human categorical thinking doesn’t quite map to the real world. Like the “is a hotdog a sandwich” question. “hotdog” and “sandwich” are concepts, like “intelligence”. Oftentimes we get so preoccupied with concepts that we forget that they’re all made-up structures that we put over the world, so they aren’t necessarily going to fit perfectly into place.

I think it’s a waste of time to try and categorize AI as “intelligent” or “not intelligent” personally. We’re arguing over a label, but I think it’s more important to understand what it can and can’t do.

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

#599

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

kibae wrote: post #537
KronisLV wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]

This account is clearly astroturfing.

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

#600

Post by vitaflo »

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!

You make your own subscription. If you want to pay $20/month then put $20 into your account. When you use it up, wait till the next month (or buy more).
Post reply on HN