zlacker

>>skille+(OP)
If they join Sam Altman and Greg Brockman at Microsoft they will not need to start from scratch because Microsoft has full rights [1] to ChatGPT IP. They can just fork ChatGPT.

Also keep in mind that Microsoft hasn't actually given OpenAI $13 Billion because much of that is in the form of Azure credits.

So this could end up being the cheapest acquisition for Microsoft: They get a $90 Billion company for peanuts.

[1] https://stratechery.com/2023/openais-misalignment-and-micros...

>>breadw+17
Just a thought.... Wouldn't one of the board members be like "If you screw with us any further we're releasing gpt to the public"

I'm wondering why that option hasn't been used yet.

>>Lonely+aG
theoretically their concern is around AI safety - whatever it is in practice doing something like that would instantly signal to everyone that they are the bad guys and confirm everyone's belief that this was just a power grab

Edit: since it's being brought up in thread they claimed they closed sourced it because of safety. It was a big controversial thing and they stood by it so it's not exactly easy to backtrack

>>vikram+oX
A power grab by open sourcing something that fits their initial mission? Interesting analysis

>>whatwh+891
No, that's backwards. Remember that these guys are all convinced that AI is too dangerous to be made public at all. The whole beef that led to them blowing up the company was feeling like OpenAI was productizing and making it available too fast. If that's your concern then you neither open source your work nor make it available via an API, you just sit on it and release papers.

Not coincidentally, exactly what Google Brain, DeepMind, FAIR etc were doing up until OpenAI decided to ignore that trust-like agreement and let people use it.