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

661–670 of 915 posts

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

#661

Post by root_axis »

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.

> It's an illusion of intelligence.

A simulation, not an illusion. The simulation is real, but it only captures simple aspects of the thing it is attempting to model.

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

#662

Post by everforward »

Aerroon wrote: post #427
everforward wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is sane washing their idea in the modern context of it having failed. I think at the time, they thought VR would be the next big thing and wanted to become the dominant player via first mover advantage. The headsets don’t really make sense to me in the way you’re describing. Phones are omnipresent because it’s a thing you always just have on you. Headsets are large enough that it’s a conscious choice to…

I think headsets might work, but I think Meta trying to use their first mover advantage so hard so early backfired. Oculus, as a device, became less desirable after it required Facebook integration. It's kind of like Microsoft with copilot - the idea about having an AI assistant that can help you use the computer is great. But it can't be from Microsoft because people don't trust them with that.

Interaction feels like the issue with headsets. You either need a fair bit of space for gesture controls, or you have to talk to yourself for voice control.

I think VR has more niche uses than the craze implied. It’s got some cool games, virtual screens for a desktop could be cool someday, but I don’t see a near future where they replace phones.

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

#663

Post by dlgeek »

PKop wrote: post #531
eklavya wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem smart and knowledgeable. Maybe you should reach the lawyers at these companies and then they can change the policy!

No I think it's made up, there is no policy, and the lawyers couldn't care less, it's just something people do to massage their own ego.

Nope. I previously worked at a very big tech company (not Google) and they definitely had guidance like that in the social media policy.

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

#664

Post by zozbot234 »

npunt wrote: post #659
ttul wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

What do you need 3 TB/s memory bandwidth for in a single user context? DeepSeek V4 pro (the latest near-SOTA model) has about 25 GB worth of active parameters (it uses a FP4 format for most layers) which gives 12 tok/s on a 307 GB/s platform as the current memory bandwidth bottleneck, maybe a bit less than that if you consider KV cache reads. That's not quite great but it's not terrible either for a pro quality model. Of course that totally ignores RAM limits which are the real issue at present: limited RAM forces you to fetch at least some fraction of params from storage, which while relatively fast is nowhere near as fast as RAM so your real tok/s are far lower (about 2 for a broadly similar model on a top-end M5 Pro laptop).

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

#665

Post by xorcist »

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…

That's not "math". That's a "wild guess", or baseless extrapolation at best.

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

#666

Post by kllrnohj »

jorvi wrote: post #660
AuthAuth wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

What geekbench 5 fps are you talking about? Geekbench only has OpenCL and Vulkan scores for the 3090 as far as I can tell, and the M1 Ultra is less than half the OpenCL score of the 3090. And the M1 Ultra was significantly more expensive.

Find or link these workloads you think exist, please

> The M1 was (well, is) a marvel and absolutely smokes a 3090 in perf per watt.

The GTX 1660 also smokes the 3090 in perf per watt. Being more efficient while being dramatically slower is not exactly an achievement, it's pretty typical power consumption scaling in fact. Perf per watt is only meaningful if you're also able to match the perf itself. That's what actually made the M1 CPU notable. M-series GPUs (not just the M1, but even the latest) haven't managed to match or even come close to the perf, so being more efficient is not really any different than, say, Nvidia, AMD, or Intel mobile GPU offerings. Nice for laptops, insignificant otherwise

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

#667

Post by dnadler »

0-_-0 wrote: post #613
coder-3 wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Why? My current mental model is that AMD chips are just a bit behind, so, less efficient, but no biggie. Do labs even use CUDA?

What I hear is that getting your network to work on AMD is a huge pain.

Yeah, historically it’s been software that’s limited AMD here. Not surprised to hear that may still be the issue. NVidia’s biggest edge was really CUDA.

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

#668

Post by feser »

mort96 wrote: post #529
dpark wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay, what do you think language models are doing when they're not producing token probability distributions? What processes do you think are going on when the function which predicts a token isn't running? What are you doing when you are not outputting tokens? You have a thought, evaluate it, refine it, repeat. You’re not wrong that the basic building block is just “next token prediction”, but clearly the emergent…

> What are you doing when you are not outputting tokens? You have a thought, evaluate it, refine it, repeat. I mean I do think sometimes even when not typing? > Will this lead to AGI? That’s still TBD. This is literally what I have been saying this whole time. Since we agree, I will consider this conversation concluded.

He’s a time waster.

I bet the guy has never contributed a novel thought that could be argued as moving something of magnitude forward. If that is the case he ought to stop writing as if he were capable of doing so - and therefore has no understanding of what true intelligence is.

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

#669

Post by freejazz »

AntiUSAbah wrote: post #625
freejazz wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't particularly care about coding and didn't weigh in on it. There is no dispute that people debate if it is effective at that. You can take that debate up with them, not me.

Companies are starting this year with an agentic layer. We will see how this will affect broader areas

Yeah and every year before there was another poster telling me the next model iteration would be enough.

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

#670

Post by djeastm »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #426
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…

Can Deepseek answer probing questions about Winnie the Pooh?

Do you often find yourself asking your Chinese employees what they think about Winnie the Pooh?
Post reply on HN