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
This is wrong. Microsoft has no such rights and its license comes with restrictions, per the cited primary source, meaning a fork would require a very careful approach.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkw...

>>himara+Tu
They could make ChatGPT++

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B

>>alasda+hY
“Microsoft Chat 365”

Although it would be beautiful if they name it Clippy and finally make Clippy into the all-powerful AGI it was destined to be.

>>prepen+I01
At least in this forum can we please stop calling something that is not even close to AGI, AGI. Its just dumb at this point. We are LIGHT-YEARS away from AGI, even calling an LLM "AI" only makes sense for a lay audience. For developers and anyone in the know LLMs are called machine learning.

>>kylebe+D21
I’m taking about the ultimate end product that Microsoft and OpenAI want to create.

So I mean proper AGI.

Naming the product Clippy now is perfectly fine while it’s just an LLM and will be more excellent over the years when it eventually achieves AGI ness.

At least in this forum can we please stop misinterpreting things in a limited way to make pedantic points about how LLMs aren’t AGI (which I assume 98% of people here know). So I think it’s funny you assume I think chatgpt is an AGI.

>>prepen+R41
I think that the dispute is about whether or not AGI is possible (at least withing the next several decades). One camp seems to be operating with the assumption that not only is it possible, but it's imminent. The other camp is saying that they've seen little reason to think that it is.

(I'm in the latter camp).

>>JohnFe+tf1
I certainly think it’s possible but have no idea how close. Maybe it’s 50 years, maybe it’s next year.

Either way, I think GGP’s comment was not applicable based on my comment as written and certainly my intent.