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

651–660 of 915 posts

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

#651

Post by oh_no »

_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?

1- Getting OpenAI's models in Azure with no license fee is pretty nice. 2- Microsoft owns ~15-27% of OpenAI, if the agreement was hurting OpenAI more than it was helping Microsoft, seems reasonable to change the terms.

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

#652

Post by aucisson_masque »

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 went and tried to debug a script. Asked deepseek 4 pro and Claude the same prompt, they both took the exact same decisions, which led to the exact same issue and me telling them its still not working, with context, over a dozen time.

Over a dozen time they just gave both the same answer, not word for word, but the exact same reasoning.

The difference is that deepseek did on 1/40th of the price (api).

To be honest deepseek V4 pro is 75% off currently, but still were speaking of something like 3$ vs 20$.

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

#653

Post by deliciousturkey »

PKop wrote: post #370
thanhhaimai wrote: post #241

Opinions are my own. I think the biggest winner of this might be Google. Virtually all the frontier AI labs use TPU. The only one that doesn't use TPU is OpenAI due to the exclusive deal with Microsoft. Given the newly launched Gen 8 TPU this month, it's likely OpenAI will contemplate using TPU too.

[flagged]

It's trivial to figure out that OP likely works for Google.

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

#654

Post by david_shi »

_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?

What aspects of the deal do you think kneecapped OpenAI the most?

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

#655

Post by taikahessu »

PKop wrote: post #370
thanhhaimai wrote: post #241

Opinions are my own. I think the biggest winner of this might be Google. Virtually all the frontier AI labs use TPU. The only one that doesn't use TPU is OpenAI due to the exclusive deal with Microsoft. Given the newly launched Gen 8 TPU this month, it's likely OpenAI will contemplate using TPU too.

[flagged]

> Opinions are my own.

That is a bold claim!

"There is no free will." - Dr. Robert Sapolsky

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

#656

Post by gchamonlive »

jiggawatts wrote: post #555
gchamonlive wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No and at this point tying yourself to azure is a strategic passive and anyone making such decisions should be held responsible for any service outage or degradation.

This is certainly... an opinion. AWS's us-east-1 famously takes down either a bunch of companies with it, or causes global outages on the regular. AWS has a terrible, terrible user interface partly because it is partitioned by service and region on purpose to decrease the "blast radius" of a failure, which is a design decision made totally pointless by having a bunch of their most critical services in one region, whi…

Nobody is winning any UX prize there. Azure, AWS, GCP... they are all terrible. Back then GCP for instance used to only work reliably on chromo-based browsers. Azure has that horrible overlay UI that abuses extended real estate that just doesn't work.

But azure wins most prizes for being terrible becuase, among other things, https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize.... It's not the worst provider maybe because oracle is somehow still kicking around.

Its just a bad product. Just like windows, OneDrive, teams and basically everything Microsoft has pumped out in the past decade.

Microsoft is in the top 5 most valuable companies in the world. It's got azure that is a huge cloud provider. And yet it was utterly unable to present its answer in the AI race. Not even a bad model with a half baked harness. Nothing. And meanwhile they are trying to port NTFS to low powered FPGAs because insanity. Just let that sink in.

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

#657

Post by wolvoleo »

AuthAuth wrote: post #611
jorvi wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPU is monstrously good. Depending on the workload, the M1 series GPU using 120W could beat an RTX 3090 using 420W. Same with the CPU. Linux compiled faster on an M1 than on the fastest Intel i9 at the time, again using only 25% of the power budget. And the M-series has only gotten better. It is kind of sad Apple neglects helping developers optimize games for the M-series because iDevices and MacBooks could be th…

>the M1 series GPU using 120W could beat an RTX 3090 using 420W You're cooked if you actually believe this

Somehow Apple has always been able to sell their stuff as somehow Magic. Remember the megahertz myth? Apple hertzes and apple bytes are much better than PC hertzes and bytes because they are made by virgin elves during a full moon.

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

#658

Post by atleastoptimal »

techpression wrote: post #624
atleastoptimal wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An AGI that can do all that would also necessarily be able to do all white collar work. That latter definition I'd consider a "soft threshold" that would be hit before recursive self-improvement, which I imagine would happen soon after. The current estimation on the time between this is fairly small, bottlenecked most likely by compute constraints, risk aversion, and need to implement safeguards. Metaculus puts it at…

Sure, but that’s like saying we’re close att infinite life because we’ve expanded our life expectancy. I don’t really buy into the ”one part equals another”, we are very quick to make those assumptions but they are usually far from the science fiction promised. Batteries and self driving cars comes to mind, and organic or otherwise crazy storage technologies, all ”very soon” for multiple decades. It’s very possible t…

I think AGI by that definition (ability to self-improve) is closer than many people think largely because current models are very close to human intelligence in many domains. They can answer questions, derive theorems, write code, navigate websites, etc. All the work that current AI research scientists do is no more than these general information processing tasks, scaled up in terms of creativity, long-term coherence, sensitivity to bad/good ideas over the span of a larger context window, etc.

The leap between Opus 4.7/GPT 5.5 and what would be sufficient for AGI seems smaller than the leap between The invention of the Transformer model (2017) and today, thus by a very conservative estimate I think it will take no more time between then and now as it will between now and an AI model as smart as any human in all respects (so by 2035). I think it will be shorter though because the amount of money being put into improving and scaling AI models and systems is 100000x greater than it was in 2017.

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

#659

Post by npunt »

ttul wrote: post #612
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.

If you do the math (I did), in 2 years, open source models that you can run on a future MacBook Pro will be as capable as the frontier cloud models are today. Memory bandwidth is growing rapidly, as is the die area dedicated to the neural cores. And all the while, we have the silicon getting more power efficient and increasingly dense (as it always does). These hardware improvements are coming along as the open sourc…

I did this calculation a bit ago and don't think frontier models are just a few MacBook Pro generations away. Yes numbers reliably go up in tech in general but in specific semiconductors & standards have long lead-times and published roadmaps, so we can have high confidence in what we're getting even in 3-4 years in terms of both transistor density and RAM speeds.

In mid-2028 we have N2E/N2P with around 15% greater transistor density than today's N3P, and by EOY2028 we'll likely have A14 with about 35-40% density improvement.

Meanwhile, we'll be on LPDDR6 by that point, which takes M-series Pros from 307GB/s -> ~400GB/s, and Max's from 614GB/s -> ~800GB/s.

Model improvements obviously will help out, but on the raw hardware front these aren't in the ballpark for frontier model numbers. An H100 has 3TB/s memory bandwidth, fwiw

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

#660

Post by jorvi »

AuthAuth wrote: post #611
jorvi wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPU is monstrously good. Depending on the workload, the M1 series GPU using 120W could beat an RTX 3090 using 420W. Same with the CPU. Linux compiled faster on an M1 than on the fastest Intel i9 at the time, again using only 25% of the power budget. And the M-series has only gotten better. It is kind of sad Apple neglects helping developers optimize games for the M-series because iDevices and MacBooks could be th…

>the M1 series GPU using 120W could beat an RTX 3090 using 420W You're cooked if you actually believe this

On Geekbench 5, the M1 hits 483 FPS and the RTX 3090 hits 504 FPS.

There are other workloads where the M1 actually beats the 3090.

Apple does plenty of hyping but it's always cute when irrational haters like you put them down. The M1 was (well, is) a marvel and absolutely smokes a 3090 in perf per watt.

Post reply on HN