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

741–750 of 915 posts

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

#741

Post by teiferer »

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…

I use a compiler daily. It consumes C++ source files and emits machine code within seconds. Doing that myself would take months.

I just did my taxes using a sophisticated spreadsheet. Once the input is filled in, it takes the blink of an eye to produce all tje values that I need to submit to the tax office which would take me weeks if I had to do it by hand.

Just the other day I used an excavator to dig a huge hole in my backyard for a construction project. Took 3 hours. Doing it by hand would have taken weeks.

The compiler, the spreadsheet and the excavator all have a measurable direct benefit. I wouldn't call any of them "intelligent".

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

#742

Post by teiferer »

rishabhaiover wrote: post #634
filleduchaos wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus by that example, computers have always been intelligent considering that they were created to, well, compute things several orders of magnitude faster than even the smartest human can do by hand.

You do realize that you need a human, a "SWE", to do the task that I just described? A computer can't do it.

You had a human to prompt the LLM to do the RCA, didn't you?

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

#743

Post by jamesfinlayson »

dlgeek wrote: post #663
PKop wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Government definitely does too.

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

#744

Post by nine_k »

ignoramous wrote: post #721
jabl wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they should use OpenAI models to figure out how to rollout IPv6.

Some food for thought: If GitHub flipped a switch and enabled IPv6 it would instantly break many of their customers who have configured IP based access controls [1]. If the customer's network supports IPv6, the traffic would switch, and if they haven't added their IPv6 addresses to the policy ... boom everything breaks. This is a tricky problem; providers don't have an easy way to correlate addresses or update polici…

I don't get it.

For every customer which has access controls configured based on IPv4 (sounds crazy enough already), GitHub would configure a trivial DENY ALL policy for IPv6. Problem solved.

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

#745

Post by kavalg »

Gigachad wrote: post #735
munk-a wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is in a much better boat than AMD or Intel. They have a gigantic warchest and can just snap up whoever looks like a leader coming out of the bubble burst.

It's becoming increasingly clear that there is no moat on models. The winners will be the ones who have existing products and ecosystems they can tie AI in to. You will pay adobe for credits because that will be the only AI that works in Photoshop, you will pay microsoft because only theirs will work on your microsoft cloud apps. Open AI has nothing. Their tech will rapidly be devalued by free models the moment they…

I kind of agree with you at this point. When ChatGPT was rapidly gaining popularity I thought that they will eventually replace search (esp. for shopping), which would have given them a huge ad revenue. Maybe they could have even tried social networking e.g., to help you sort out the huge flow of information that today's social networks are and get to the important/rewarding/whatever posts. But now ChatGPT is kind of getting commoditized. I would even dare say that gemini feels to me a bit better now, so the search route for ChatGPT is clearly gone.

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

#746

Post by chronc6393 »

SwellJoe wrote: post #457
DeathArrow wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Folks who make Deepseek, Qwen, GLM, MiniMax, Kimi and MiMo.

They're at the frontier of last year. They compete with Opus 4.5. They don't yet compete with current frontier models. They'll presumably catch up, there is no monopoly on talent held by the US. And, that's more true than ever now that the US is actively hostile to immigrants. Scientists who might have come to the US three years ago have little reason to do so now.

> Scientists who might have come to the US three years ago have little reason to do so now.

Been saying that about EU and China for decades now.

Yet the top European and Chinese still come to the US. Even in April 2026.

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

#747

Post by danpalmer »

zobzu wrote: post #739
bastawhiz wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many labs use TPUs, but not exclusively. Most labs need more compute than they can get, and if there's TPU capacity, they'll adapt their systems to be able to run partially on TPUs.

even google doesnt only use TPUs.

Google is in a different position to others in that they're the only frontier lab with a cloud infra business. It obviously makes sense to sell GPUs on cloud infra as people want to rent them. In that respect Google buys a ton of GPUs to rent out.

What's unclear to me is how much Google uses GPUs for their own stuff. Yes Gemini runs on GPUs now, so that Google can sell Gemini on-prem boxes (recent release announced last week), but is any training or inference for Gemini really happening on GPUs? This is unclear to me. I'd have guessed not given that I thought TPUs were much cheaper to operate, but maybe I'm wrong.

Caveat, I work at Google, but not on anything to do with this. I'm only going on what's in the press for this stuff.

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

#748

Post by bvanheu »

nine_k wrote: post #744
ignoramous wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some food for thought: If GitHub flipped a switch and enabled IPv6 it would instantly break many of their customers who have configured IP based access controls [1]. If the customer's network supports IPv6, the traffic would switch, and if they haven't added their IPv6 addresses to the policy ... boom everything breaks. This is a tricky problem; providers don't have an easy way to correlate addresses or update polici…

I don't get it. For every customer which has access controls configured based on IPv4 (sounds crazy enough already), GitHub would configure a trivial DENY ALL policy for IPv6. Problem solved.

that's the scenario they want to prevent. they can't force the client to use ipv4, if they connect via ipv6, they will be served an accss denied.

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

#749

Post by danpalmer »

that_was_good wrote: post #731
digitaltrees wrote: post #725

As former corporate restructuring lawyer…this kind of stuff indicates the cash strapped scramble of the end days.

After they just raised 122 billion dollars?

At those numbers it's all a silly game. How much of that was paid to shareholders rather than the business so they can cash out? How much of that is vendors buying future revenue? What liquidation preference is that at?

From what has been reported it's clearly not as simple as raising 122 billion. Some folks called it "scraping the barrel", supposedly Anthropic has surpassed them on the secondary market, etc.

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

#750

Post by chii »

_vertigo wrote: post #723
nl wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is somewhat out of date (Dec 2024), but gives you some idea of how far behind AMD was then: https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/mi300x-vs-h100-vs-h200... Pull quotes: AMD’s software experience is riddled with bugs rendering out of the box training with AMD is impossible. We were hopeful that AMD could emerge as a strong competitor to NVIDIA in training workloads, but, as of today, this is unfortunately not the…

That’s insane. There should be a big team of people at AMD whose whole job is just to dogfood their stuff for training like this. Speaking of which, Amazon is in the same boat, I’m constantly surprised that Amazon is not treating improving Inferentia/Trainium software as an uber-priority. (I work at Amazon)

> There should be a big team of people at AMD whose whole job is just to dogfood their stuff

if they had this management attitude, they wouldn't have been so far behind so as to need this action in the first place!

Post reply on HN