Hopefully this means opeani wont exclusively distribute codex app through microsofts drm system
Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
761–770 of 915 posts
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#762Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI. If you gave me CC in the 80's I would probably have called it 'alive' since it clearly passes the Turing test as I understood it then (I wouldn't have been able to distinguish it from a person for most conversations). Now every time it gets better we push that definition further and every crack we open to a chasm and declare that it isn't close. At the same time there ar…
I don't think the goalpost has been shifted for AGI or the definition of AGI that is used by these corporations. It's just they broke it down to stages to claim AGI achieved. It was always a model or system that surpasses human capabilities at most tasks/being able to replace a human worker. The big companies broke it down to AGI stage 1, stage 2, etc to be able to say they achieved AGI. The Turing Test/Imitation Gam…
AGI is a business term nowadays, it has nothing to do with the hard to define term intelligence.
AGI - Automatically Generating Income.
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#763Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
OpenAI is handling 15% of US traffic.
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#764Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, exactly as they would now, when the access over IPv6 is entirely unavailable.
With that, the customers who don't use filtering by IPv4 would be able to use IPv6. Those who do use access control by IPv4 ranges would have time to sort out their IPv6 setup, without having anything broken at the moment when IPv6 is enabled.
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#765Opinions 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.
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.
Indeed. I'm wondering if Apple's "miss the train" with AI ended up being a blessing for them. Not only in the Google deal but also there's a lot of people doing interesting stuff locally..
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#766Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Nit: scientists have the same reasons to do so now, the same as ever. They just have additional reasons to not do so. But even that distinction is only temporary, since we're determined to piss away any remaining research lead that draws people in. Hopefully the next administration will work at actively reversing the damage, with incentives beyond just "we pinky-promise not to haul you at gunpoint to a concrete deten…
> Hopefully the next administration will work at actively reversing the damage, with incentives beyond just "we pinky-promise not to haul you at gunpoint to a concrete detention center and then deport you to Yemen".
Won't be enough to undo the damage. The US would have to do a full about face, prosecute crimes of the current administration and enact serious core reforms to make it impossible for things to drastically change again in 4 years. Also known as, never going to happen because even the current opposition party doesn't actually want structural change. The world has seen how bad the US can get from a single election, and that isn't changing any time soon.
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#767Earlier quoted context omitted.
people are trying, especially for inference. For training, it’s just too high risk to tank your training I think. TPUs are at least dogfooded by Google deepmind, no team AFAIK has gotten the AMD stack to train well.
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?
> Do labs even use CUDA?
From the papers I've read and the labs that I have worked in personally, I would say that most scientists developing Deep learning solutions use CUDA for GPU acceleration
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#768Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Opus 4.7/Gpt5.5 class model is 5 trillion parameters[1]. To run a 8 bit quantized version of that you need roughly 5TB of RAM. Today that is around 18 NVidia B300. That's around $900,000, without including the computers to run them in. It's true that the capability of open source models is improving, but running actual frontier models on your MPB seems a way off. [1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/204212356166685523…
The OP said "as capable as the frontier cloud models are today" which might assume model improvements that do more with less. Opus 4.7/Gpt5.5 performance might be achievable with a fraction of the parameters.
Exactly. I also feel like being able to choose a model for the use case could be worth an idea. So instead of trying to squeeze all kinds of knowledge into a single model, even if it's moe, just focus models on use cases. I bet you only need double digit billion parameter models for that with same or even better performance
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#769Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
OpenAI is handling 15% of US traffic.
> OpenAI is handling 15% of US traffic.
The parent post was arguing that they can do this now because they are lighting stacks of cash on fire. And once they stop doing that, their LLM lead will be gone in a hurry. They appear to not have a moat, like other more established players do.
Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal
#770Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OpenAI is worth many multiples of that valued at --which I'd say is a reasonable distinction to make right about now
Their revenue is 20B, so they still worth multiples of 10B regardless of valuation even if you consider the basic 5x revenue valuation https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-cfo-says-annualized-...
> Their revenue is 20B, so they still worth multiples of 10B regardless of valuation...
I can easily generate double that revenue, by selling $20 bills for $10.