Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal • Hacker News Board

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

#911

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 8:03 PM UTC

csa wrote: post #858

Dylan16807 wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the company in the latter example really screwed up, but how does that connect to disclaimers? Is it just an example of malicious behavior?

Great questions. > Sounds like the company in the latter example really screwed up Interesting. I think they made an unfortunate but sound decision based on their circumstances. > but how does that connect to disclaimers? It doesn’t directly. > Is it just an example of malicious behavior? Yes. It’s an example of how absolutely bat-shit crazy people can behave in ways that can tax a company’s legal team. Having folks…

It's the fact that they kept the employee around as a toxic asset/reminder that I think really puts it into "mistake" territory.

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

#912

Post by AntiUSAbah » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 7:55 AM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #861

AntiUSAbah wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is the adoption curve; Right now it might feel to you that its not worth it or not happening as it might for most people. Than suddenly one model update moves it from 80% to 85% and now 30% of the market wants to use it. Then it might be already too late to act like using it to your advantage, being a valuable expert or deciding things long term based on the new state of affairs.

You're in denial and this is cope. The tools aren't even close. The notion that any model is 5% away from doing what has been promised *FOR YEARS* is just facially ridiculous. >Then it might be already too late to act like using it to your advantage, being a valuable expert or deciding things long term based on the new state of affairs. There's no universe where this is happening. The tools just are not that good. It…

The current predictions, and the predictions from a few years ago is more on 2030.

I personally think we are running in a very critical / interesting phase of 5-15 years were we will see how it might affect us.

Besides, it affects already real jobs and real people. Translator, avg/junior graphics designer etc.

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

#913

Post by freejazz » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

AntiUSAbah wrote: post #912

freejazz wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're in denial and this is cope. The tools aren't even close. The notion that any model is 5% away from doing what has been promised *FOR YEARS* is just facially ridiculous. >Then it might be already too late to act like using it to your advantage, being a valuable expert or deciding things long term based on the new state of affairs. There's no universe where this is happening. The tools just are not that good. It…

The current predictions, and the predictions from a few years ago is more on 2030. I personally think we are running in a very critical / interesting phase of 5-15 years were we will see how it might affect us. Besides, it affects already real jobs and real people. Translator, avg/junior graphics designer etc.

>The current predictions, and the predictions from a few years ago is more on 2030.

They weren't back then.

>I personally think we are running in a very critical / interesting phase of 5-15 years were we will see how it might affect us.

That's a nice thought.

>Besides, it affects already real jobs and real people. Translator, avg/junior graphics designer etc.

The predictions were much greater than just translation and graphic design, so again, what's your point?

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

#914

Post by davidgerard » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 4:34 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #38

It's unclear which elements of this new deal are binding versus promises with OpenAI characteristics. "Microsoft Corp. will publish fiscal year 2026 third-quarter financial results after the close of the market on Wednesday, April 29, 2026" [1]; I'd wait for that before jumping to conclusions. [1] https://news.microsoft.com/source/2026/04/08/microsoft-annou...

Very annoyed Microsoft's words were extruded corporate spam reiterating the press release and how great this deal was.

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

#915

Post by csa » Mon, May 04, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #911

csa wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great questions. > Sounds like the company in the latter example really screwed up Interesting. I think they made an unfortunate but sound decision based on their circumstances. > but how does that connect to disclaimers? It doesn’t directly. > Is it just an example of malicious behavior? Yes. It’s an example of how absolutely bat-shit crazy people can behave in ways that can tax a company’s legal team. Having folks…

It's the fact that they kept the employee around as a toxic asset/reminder that I think really puts it into "mistake" territory.

> It's the fact that they kept the employee around as a toxic asset/reminder that I think really puts it into "mistake" territory.

This is the exact line of inquiry that I took.

I asked why they didn’t just offer the toxic person a buy out or just fire the person and take the hit.

And…

1. They did offer a buy out. The person refused. The person was towards the end of their working career, and backdoor comms revealed that the person felt like they had quite a few years left of earning potential.

2. Then why not fire and pay the price? This turned back into the issue of the legal team not having the capacity to handle a case like the one they would have. The person would basically be retired and bitter and would make harassing the company legally their full time job — one that would probably yield decent dividends. Remember, the person was not looking for an equitable outcome — it was an identity issue.

Ultimately, they decided to put the person in a differ department, don’t give them any power, but give them something to do that was at least marginally productive. The person was placed under a super chill person and coasted to retirement.

It’s hard to tell if the path taken was financially optimal, but it was certainly close. That said, the path they took led to far fewer strains on the legal and executive staffs. I’m guessing that was actually worth a lot.