zlacker

[parent] [thread] 153 comments
1. shubha+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:14:03
Have to give it to Satya. There's a thin possibility that Microsoft would have to write-off its whole $10B (or more?) investment in OpenAI, but that isn't Satya's focus. The focus is on what he can do next. Maybe, recruit the most formidable AI team in the world, removed from the shackles of an awkward non-profit owning a for-profit company? Give enough (cash) incentives and most of OpenAI employees would have no qualms about following Sam and Greg. It will take time for sure, but Microsoft can now capture even a bigger slice of THE FUTURE than it was possible with OpenAI investment.
replies(42): >>blacko+P >>ricard+c1 >>tsunam+B1 >>sekai+w3 >>vbezhe+U3 >>imgabe+e4 >>rounak+H6 >>rjtava+v8 >>leobg+49 >>bottle+p9 >>belter+ja >>belter+bb >>cowl+sb >>skille+Gb >>pug_mo+Fd >>dagaci+Kd >>layer8+1e >>vaxman+Je >>tw1984+kg >>ljm+lg >>cycoma+ch >>soderf+Hh >>throw3+Ai >>jkhdig+8m >>DebtDe+bm >>benkar+3o >>safety+tq >>OscarT+Fs >>olalon+ov >>dalbas+Tz >>__Matr+yA >>suslik+uC >>dkjaud+aD >>softwa+xF >>visarg+QF >>JumpCr+zG >>Jayaku+1I >>nytesk+xJ >>iambat+1M >>mandee+vb1 >>LrnByT+je2 >>caycep+ct2
2. blacko+P[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:17:57
>>shubha+(OP)
10 billion was potential investment. They transfer that in tranches, so lot of it is still in MS bank. They already have access to GPT3/4/turbo + Dalle 2/3. Plus with its hordes of lawyers, it will be an uphill battle for OpenAI to make MS lose.
replies(3): >>Maxion+P2 >>doorav+B5 >>neel89+9f
3. ricard+c1[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:19:25
>>shubha+(OP)
And this kind of thinking seems to be the exact reason he was pushed away. “The future” as envisioned by a megacorp might not be that great.
replies(1): >>cornho+R7
4. tsunam+B1[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:20:39
>>shubha+(OP)
He doesn’t have to write down the investment that came in the form of azure credits. He just doesn’t have to deliver.

The core thing he is 100% focused on is not having a massive stock drop Monday morning. That’s it that’s his reason to exist all weekend long.

After that. He has time to figure it out.

replies(1): >>hef198+k2
◧◩
5. hef198+k2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:23:21
>>tsunam+B1
Don't forget, MS has a board as well. One Satya reports to the same way Sam reported to the OpanAI one. Potantially loosong 10 billion is nothing the board will just shrug off.
replies(3): >>adeelk+66 >>taspeo+k7 >>svnt+RI
◧◩
6. Maxion+P2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:26:05
>>blacko+P
Yep, it's now time for MS to throw in the laywers.
7. sekai+w3[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:29:36
>>shubha+(OP)
> Maybe, recruit the most formidable AI team in the world, removed from the shackles of an awkward non-profit owning a for-profit company?

Into the shackles of ever-controlling mega-corp?

replies(2): >>gscott+14 >>Kepler+a4
8. vbezhe+U3[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:31:15
>>shubha+(OP)
Microsoft got Copilot. They were first to establish the brand. OpenAI technologies let them do it. I don't know how much Copilot brand cost, but right now when you're thinking about AI-assisted programming, Copilot is the first thing comes in mind. So probably they got something in return.
replies(2): >>chamod+d9 >>chucke+Rv
◧◩
9. gscott+14[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:31:47
>>sekai+w3
24k gold shackles for a year or two and then onto the next thing.
◧◩
10. Kepler+a4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:32:00
>>sekai+w3
That surely is no problem from the pov of said mega-corp.
11. imgabe+e4[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:32:15
>>shubha+(OP)
Microsoft is now the for-profit arm of OpenAI.
replies(1): >>taspeo+37
◧◩
12. doorav+B5[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:38:45
>>blacko+P
yeah most likely they have like 6 billion left in the bank accounts which they'll redirect to the new AI lab
◧◩◪
13. adeelk+66[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:40:48
>>hef198+k2
Microsoft’s share price swings about more than that on a daily basis
replies(1): >>rafram+V7
14. rounak+H6[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:43:10
>>shubha+(OP)
> can capture a bigger slice of THE FUTURE History says that the future is actually written by the nerds and not the drumbeaters (ah read CXOs).

In all this drama, the deep work interruption of the nerds is the net loss (and effectively slight deceleration) for the future.

◧◩
15. taspeo+37[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:44:32
>>imgabe+e4
https://imgur.com/a/ZjehzHY
◧◩◪
16. taspeo+k7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:45:56
>>hef198+k2
Yup back pats from the board to Satya. Only 10 billion to get their foot in the door at OpenAI and now they can ransack all their talent. How many billions would it cost to develop that independently? What a saving.
replies(1): >>taspeo+eL
◧◩
17. cornho+R7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:48:47
>>ricard+c1
I'm not sure I follow this chain of arguments, which I hear often. So, a technology becomes possible, that has the potential to massively disrupt social order - while being insanely profitable to those who employ it. The knowledge is already out there in scientific journals, or if it's not, it can be grokked via corporate espionage or paying huge salaries to the employees of OpenAI or whoever else has it.

What exactly can a foundation in charge of OpenAI do to prevent this unethical use of the technology? If OpenAI refuses to use it to some unethical goal, what prevents other, for profit enterprises, from doing the same? How can private actors stop this without government regulation?

Sounds like Truman's apocryphal "the Russian's will never have the bomb". Well, they did, just 4 years later.

replies(3): >>cyanyd+aC >>bart_s+3K >>ricard+7Y1
◧◩◪◨
18. rafram+V7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:48:57
>>adeelk+66
Market cap is not really real money.
replies(1): >>bottle+5a
19. rjtava+v8[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:52:19
>>shubha+(OP)
This whole weekend will probably be a case study in both Corporate Governance (Microsoft may look bad here for not anticipating the problem) and Negotiation (a masterclass by Satya: gave Ilya what he wanted and got most of OpenAI's commercial potential anyway).
replies(2): >>jacque+Qc >>layer8+Qp
20. leobg+49[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:54:22
>>shubha+(OP)
Isn't Microsoft in breach of contract here? Not by the word (parties hadn't forseen such event, and so there won't be anything about this explicity in the contract). But one could argue that MS isn't acting in good faith and acting counter to the purpose of the agreement with OpenAI.

The argument would go something like this:

MS were contractually obliged to assist OpenAI in their mission. OpenAI fired Altman for what they say is hindering their mission. If MS now hires Altman and gives him the tools he needs, MS is positioning itself as an opponent to OpenAI and its mission.

replies(4): >>Tempes+vc >>vaxman+Kg >>chucke+rv >>dehrma+P02
◧◩
21. chamod+d9[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:55:00
>>vbezhe+U3
Not only Github copilot but the general copilot integrations announced at Ignite for Microsoft 365 and other apps means a much deeper full on assistant integration for whole ecosystem.
22. bottle+p9[view] [source] 2023-11-20 08:56:13
>>shubha+(OP)
Maybe the next move is an open offer to any OpenAI employees to join Sam’s team at their current compensation or better.. call it the ‘treacherous 500’ or something.
replies(1): >>bottle+Fr1
◧◩◪◨⬒
23. bottle+5a[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 08:59:05
>>rafram+V7
Twitter?
replies(1): >>hef198+7g
24. belter+ja[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:00:29
>>shubha+(OP)
Remember when they did this?

"Microsoft Buys Skype for $8.5 Billion" -https://www.wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-skype-2/

To then write down their assets?

"How Skype lost its crown to Zoom" - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/skype-coronavirus-pandemic Or when they did this ?

Or how in 2014...

"Microsoft buying Nokia's phone business in a $7.2 billion bid for its mobile future" - https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/2/4688530/microsoft-buys-nok...

Then in 2016 sold it for 360 million?

"Nokia returns to the phone market as Microsoft sells brand" - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/18/nokia-ret...

replies(9): >>pug_mo+6e >>meowki+ce >>hughes+ve >>alsodu+Ff >>morale+7E >>NanoYo+fl1 >>rmason+B32 >>scheme+E62 >>notyou+eb2
25. belter+bb[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:05:54
>>shubha+(OP)
You are looking forward to a self-aware, self-replicating, unregulated Clippy?
replies(1): >>jacque+fd
26. cowl+sb[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:07:44
>>shubha+(OP)
I would say this is a better outcome for what remains of OpenAI. a New startup would have created more exodus that Microsoft. Doubt many brilliant researchers would want to be Employee number 945728123 of Microsoft when the market is theirs at this moment.
replies(1): >>sgift+Di
27. skille+Gb[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:09:42
>>shubha+(OP)
You do realize that Microsoft uses OpenAI IP for all of its AI products, of which there are at least two dozen that they released this year. In what universe do you make the connection that they would write it off and go to a different, less superior/reliable, model provider? It would never happen.
replies(1): >>cyanyd+ZC
◧◩
28. Tempes+vc[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:15:38
>>leobg+49
Perhaps. Could be tied up in court for 2-3 years before we find out.
◧◩
29. jacque+Qc[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:17:37
>>rjtava+v8
As much as I dislike Microsoft: they played this exactly right. No boardseat: no culpability or conflict of interest, catch the falling pieces and reposition themselves stronger. What makes you say they didn't anticipate the problem? If they had anticipated it I don't see what else they could have done without making themselves part of the problem.
replies(2): >>rjtava+Xf >>tonyed+np
◧◩
30. jacque+fd[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:19:57
>>belter+bb
At least it will be a broken paperclip maximizer.
31. pug_mo+Fd[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:21:41
>>shubha+(OP)
It's more than that, OpenAI had many people aligned with the decel agenda, MSFT managed to take the accel leadership and likely their supporters. Does anyone know any large AI competitors that don't have a big decel contingent? Also interesting that META took the opportunity to close one of their decel departments on Saturday.
32. dagaci+Kd[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:22:22
>>shubha+(OP)
Satya simply had to move quickly to restore shareholder confidence. I'm not convinced that its actually desirable for Microsoft to be fully in the driving seat. Hopefully the new division will have autonomy.

Microsoft will not have actually paid $10B as a single commitment, in fact the financials of OpenAI appear to be alarming from the recent web chatter. OpenAI are possibly close to collapse financially as well as organizationally.

Whatever Satya does will be aimed at isolating Microsoft and its roadmap from that, his job is actually also on the line for this debacle.

The OpenAI board have ruined their credibility and organization.

33. layer8+1e[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:24:16
>>shubha+(OP)
What choice did Satya have? Nothing much else he could have done in the present situation.
replies(1): >>noprom+ky
◧◩
34. pug_mo+6e[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:25:01
>>belter+ja
Satya was not responsible for those 2 purchases
◧◩
35. meowki+ce[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:25:22
>>belter+ja
Pre Satya history is irrelevant to the current MSFT
replies(1): >>alchem+dC
◧◩
36. hughes+ve[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:27:37
>>belter+ja
True, but that was when ballmer was at the helm
replies(1): >>DrBazz+pD
37. vaxman+Je[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:28:42
>>shubha+(OP)
> most of OpenAI employees would have no qualms about following Sam and Greg. It will take time for sure

By all accounts, OpenAI is not a going concern without Azure. I could see Tesla acquiring the bankrupt shell for the publicity, but the worker bees seem to be more keen on their current leader (as of last week) than their prior leader. OpenAI ends with a single owner.

◧◩
38. neel89+9f[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:31:10
>>blacko+P
Make the model open source and lets see what MS can do with army of lawyers
replies(1): >>blacko+Dh
◧◩
39. alsodu+Ff[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:33:25
>>belter+ja
Remember when they did this?

"Microsoft to acquire GitHub for $7.5 billion" - https://news.microsoft.com/2018/06/04/microsoft-to-acquire-g...

only to enable GitHub to do greater things, without disrupting user experience?

"Four years after being acquired by Microsoft, GitHub keeps doing its thing" - https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/26/four-years-after-being-acq...

or when they acquired LinkedIn before that?

"Microsoft buys LinkedIn" - https://news.microsoft.com/announcement/microsoft-buys-linke...

which turned out to be fine too?

How about Minecraft? Activision?

It's easy to cherry-pick examples from an era where Microsoft wasn't the most successful. The current leadership seems competent and the stock growth of the company reflects that.

replies(7): >>moffka+Dg >>belter+Tp >>underd+AI >>meiral+uM >>andai+m12 >>smcleo+Ih2 >>straaf+E73
◧◩◪
40. rjtava+Xf[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:35:30
>>jacque+Qc
I based that opinion on two news that came out:

1. When they invested in Open AI it had a more mature board (in particular Reid Hoffman) and afterwards they lost a few members without replacing them. That was probably something Microsoft could have influenced without making themselves part of the problem.

2. They received a call one minute before the decision was made public. That shouldn't happen to a partner that owns 49% of the company you just fired a CEO from.

Sources:

1 - https://loeber.substack.com/p/a-timeline-of-the-openai-board

2 - https://www.axios.com/2023/11/17/microsoft-openai-sam-altman...

replies(1): >>jacque+yh
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
41. hef198+7g[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:36:29
>>bottle+5a
Investors money =|= the companies money.
42. tw1984+kg[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:38:05
>>shubha+(OP)
> There's a thin possibility that Microsoft would have to write-off its whole $10B (or more?) investment in OpenAI

Hiring Altman makes sure that MSFT is still relevant to the whole Altman/OpenAI deal, not just a part of it. Hiring Altman thus decreases such possibility to write-off its investment.

43. ljm+lg[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:38:17
>>shubha+(OP)
Given it's Microsoft we're talking about, it's more likely they use it to find new and novel ways to shove Edge, OneDrive, Teams and Bing down your throat whenever you use any of their products.
◧◩◪
44. moffka+Dg[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:39:47
>>alsodu+Ff
> Four years after being acquired by Microsoft, GitHub keeps doing its thing

The fact that this is even news speaks of the absolute shit job they've done with acquisitions in the past.

replies(2): >>firtoz+qh >>efdee+Pj
◧◩
45. vaxman+Kg[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:40:40
>>leobg+49
> MS is positioning itself as an opponent to OpenAI

They were positioned that way by the OpenAI board, which has effectively committed corporate suicide and won’t be around much longer.

replies(1): >>MrMan+Sx
46. cycoma+ch[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:43:19
>>shubha+(OP)
I really don't understand the argument here, why are Altman and Brockman the most formidable AI team? I would wager a substantial sum that Altman has not touch anything technical (let alone related to AI) in a very long time. He certainly showed he is a very good operator, networker and executer, but that doesbt give you the technical expertise to build state of the art AI.

If he manages to get a significant amount of the OpenAI engineers to jump ship maybe, but even for those who are largely motivated by money, how is MS going to offer the same opportunity as when they joined for equity with OpenAI? Are they going to pay then >$1M salaries?

replies(5): >>wruza+It >>aeyes+YE >>mlrtim+TF >>idopms+zN >>andai+x22
◧◩◪◨
47. firtoz+qh[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:44:29
>>moffka+Dg
Maybe they learned their lesson?

Looking at the global track records of what happens after acquisitions, these don't seem too bad

◧◩◪◨
48. jacque+yh[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:45:04
>>rjtava+Xf
Yes, but both of those are not Microsoft's doing but the OpenAI board's doing. You don't just get to name someone to a board without the board to agree to it and normally this happens as a condition of for instance an investment or partnership.

Nadella was rightly furious about this, the tail wagged the dog there. And this isn't over yet: you can expect a lot of change on the OpenAI side.

replies(1): >>rjtava+zo
◧◩◪
49. blacko+Dh[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:45:20
>>neel89+9f
Sure, they can but that would be against all the safe alignment values they are pushing. They'll lose billions in current and potential investment and will spend the life in lawsuits. Also, govt may not like giving away cutting age tech to China.
50. soderf+Hh[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:45:37
>>shubha+(OP)
Agreed, Satya is a first rate executive, other than Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX, I can't really think of anyone in the same league.

There was a lot of discussion on HN the past few days regarding the importance (or lack thereof) of a CEO to an organization. It may be the case that most executives are interchangeable and attributing success to them is not merited, but in the case of the aforementioned, I think it is merited.

replies(2): >>lotsof+Cl >>pb7+n92
51. throw3+Ai[view] [source] 2023-11-20 09:50:09
>>shubha+(OP)
However it's a nice way to deal with the whole "open" AI issue: first you create a non-profit to create open AI systems; then when you hit a marketable success it turns into a "capped profit"; and finally, all the people from that capped profit leave en masse and transfer their acquired know how to a for-profit company.
replies(1): >>dehrma+F22
◧◩
52. sgift+Di[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:50:18
>>cowl+sb
> Doubt many brilliant researchers would want to be Employee number 945728123 of Microsoft when the market is theirs at this moment.

Yeah, it's not like Microsoft has one of the most renowned industry research groups or something like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Research

replies(1): >>cowl+wu
◧◩◪◨
53. efdee+Pj[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 09:59:12
>>moffka+Dg
It absolutely does not. Take a look around at acquisitions in general and count how many acquired teams are still doing their thing.
◧◩
54. lotsof+Cl[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:09:09
>>soderf+Hh
Tim Cook is not in the same league?
replies(1): >>soderf+vm
55. jkhdig+8m[view] [source] 2023-11-20 10:13:09
>>shubha+(OP)
My understanding was that a large tranche of that $10B consisted of Azure compute credits, not actual cash.
56. DebtDe+bm[view] [source] 2023-11-20 10:13:18
>>shubha+(OP)
> possibility that Microsoft would have to write-off its whole $10B

There was an article that came out over the weekend that stated that only a small part of that $10B investment was in cash, the vast majority is cloud GPU credits, and that it has a long time horizon with only a relatively small fraction having been consumed to date. So, if MSFT were to develop their own GPT4 model in house over the next year or so they could in theory back out of their investment with most of it intact.

replies(1): >>hef198+qn
◧◩◪
57. soderf+vm[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:15:44
>>lotsof+Cl
Yes, oversight on my part, as a supply chain guy, he has really pivoted well in to a generalist leading Apple in to the entertainment biz.
◧◩
58. hef198+qn[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:22:11
>>DebtDe+bm
Depends on the term sheet behind that. That, and how MS is accounting for its minority stake in OpenAI. If they have to write off the vakue, it doesn't how they paid for it.
59. benkar+3o[view] [source] 2023-11-20 10:27:24
>>shubha+(OP)
Side note, the 10B investment is less than a half a percent of MSFT's 2.75T market cap.
◧◩◪◨⬒
60. rjtava+zo[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:31:08
>>jacque+yh
Buying 49% of a company is a risky deal. You better make sure the other 51% have good governance.
replies(1): >>jacque+z51
◧◩◪
61. tonyed+np[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:38:20
>>jacque+Qc
>reposition themselves stronger.

We don't know that yet.

replies(1): >>jacque+dB1
◧◩
62. layer8+Qp[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:41:32
>>rjtava+v8
Didn’t the negotiations fail?
◧◩◪
63. belter+Tp[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:41:45
>>alsodu+Ff
"Has GitHub Been Down More Since Its Acquisition by Microsoft?" - https://statusgator.com/blog/has-github-been-down-more-since...

"... In the two years since the acquisition announcement, GitHub has reported a 41% increase in status page incidents. Furthermore, there has been a 97% increase in incident minutes, compared to the two years prior to the announcement..."

replies(4): >>OptoCo+wD >>mlrtim+ME >>asdfas+fK1 >>m00x+Jn2
64. safety+tq[view] [source] 2023-11-20 10:46:49
>>shubha+(OP)
If there's one thing we should have learned over the last 45 years in this industry - it's never underestimate Microsoft.
65. OscarT+Fs[view] [source] 2023-11-20 11:01:36
>>shubha+(OP)
I dunno man. Doing innovation from inside Microsoft might be more difficult than if they had just formed a new startup. Microsoft as a brand has the stench of mediocracy upon it. Large companies are where ideas and teams go to die, or just rest and vest.
◧◩
66. wruza+It[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 11:09:12
>>cycoma+ch
I don’t get it too. It’s akin to claiming that by hiring an Oracle executive you can build the best database tech. A little stretch but still. Chances are I’ll never understand how things like that work, because there must be few truths about humans my mind resists to believe.

My uneducated guess is that OpenAI really screwed up the PR part and the current Microsoft’s claims are more on the overall damage control / fire suppression side.

◧◩◪
67. cowl+wu[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 11:14:28
>>sgift+Di
I did not say the don't have and it's precisely because the do have that is less likely to attract the kind of people that make a difference. Less room to move and less room to be distinguished. Case in point these did not join that renowned group in the first place but joined OpenAI an obscure not renowned group and I guarantee you it's not because MS was not interested.
68. olalon+ov[view] [source] 2023-11-20 11:20:57
>>shubha+(OP)
> There's a thin possibility that Microsoft would have to write-off its whole $10B (or more?) investment in OpenAI

How so? I don't get the hype.

OpenAI trained truly ground breaking models that were miles ahead of anything the world had seen before. Everything else was really just a side show. Their marketing efforts were, at best, average. They called their flagship product "ChatGPT", a term that might resonate with AI scientists but appears as a random string of letters to the average person. They had no mobile app for a long time. Their web app had some major bugs.

Maybe Sam Altman deserves credit for attracting talent and capital, I don't know. But it seems to me that OpenAI's success by far and large hinges on their game-changing models. And by extension, the bulk of the credit goes to their AI research/tech teams.

replies(1): >>infect+3y
◧◩
69. chucke+rv[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 11:21:30
>>leobg+49
Microsoft does not prevent OpenAI from achieving their mission. OpenAI does not bind Microsoft to behave one way or another.
◧◩
70. chucke+Rv[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 11:23:26
>>vbezhe+U3
Yeah, Copilot has become a very nice branding.

For business and for the consumer. They can retire Bing search at this point, making it Microsoft Copilot for Web or something.

replies(1): >>pjerem+yK
◧◩◪
71. MrMan+Sx[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 11:35:56
>>vaxman+Kg
I am sure Sutskever knows openai as an economically competitive entity has been living on borrowed time. this is a global arms race and this tech will bleed out everywhere. implementing LLMs is not rocket science per se and there are multiple places in the world this work can be done.

the bottleneck right now is mostly compute I think, and openai does not have the resources or expertise to allieviate that bottleneck on a timescale that can save them.

◧◩
72. infect+3y[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 11:36:51
>>olalon+ov
I have the complete opposite perspective. Their initial api went live sometime late 2020. They have done a fantastic job scaling, releasing features while growing the business at a rate we have not seen many times before.
◧◩
73. noprom+ky[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 11:38:37
>>layer8+1e
Choice? Are you framing this as though the whole situation didn't go pretty well toward msft's favor?

Now they get 40 percent of open ai talent and 50 percent of the for profit openai subsidiary.

Pretty sure when the market opens you'll see confirmation that they came out on top.

It's a win for everyone honestly. Anthropic split all over again but this time the progressives got pushed out vs the conservatives leaving voluntarily.

They couldn't keep nice under the tent. Now two tents.

Little diff because this time an investor with special privaleges made a new special tent quick to bag talent.

Easy decision for msft. No talent to competitors. Small talent pool. The other big boys were already all over that. Salty bosses at other outfits. No poach for them. Satya too clever and brought the checkbook plus already courted the cutest girls earlier for a different dance. Hell he was assisting in the negotiation when the old dance got all rough and the jets started throwing hooks about safety and scale and bla bla we all know the story.

Satya hunts with an elephant gun with one of those laser sites and the auto trigger that fires automatically when the cross hair goes over the target. Rip sundar. 2 rounds for satya. One more and I feel bad for Google... Naw... Couldn't feel bad for Google. Punchable outfit. They do punchable things. We all know it... I'm just saying it.

replies(1): >>sidibe+HV
74. dalbas+Tz[view] [source] 2023-11-20 11:48:20
>>shubha+(OP)
>>There's a thin possibility that Microsoft would have to write-off its whole $10B (or more?) investment in OpenAI, but that isn't Satya's focus. The focus is on what he can do next. Maybe, recruit the most formidable AI team in the world, removed from the shackles...

That's a slightly flamboyant reading.. but I agree with the gist.

A slim chance of total right off doctor off.. that was always the case. This decision does not affect it much. The place in the risk model, where most of the action happens... Is less dramatic effects on more likely bans of the probability curve.

Msft cannot be kicked off the team. They still have all of the rights to their openai investment no matter who the CEO is.

Meanwhile, is clearly competing, participating, and doing business with openai. The hierarchy of paradigms, is flexible... Competing appears to have won.

I agree that direct financial returns, are the lesser part of the investment case for msft.. and the other participants. That's pretty much standard in consortium-like ventures.

At the base level, openai's IP is still largely science, unpatentable know how and key people. Msft have some access to (I assume) of openAI' defendable IP via their participation in the consortium, or 49% ownership of the for-profit entity. Meanwhile, openai is not so far ahead that pacing them from a dead start is impossible.

I also agree, that this represents a decision to launch ahead aggressively in the generative AI space.

In the latter 2000s, Google have the competence, technology, resources and momentum to smash anyone else on anything worldwideWeb.

They won all the "races." Google have never been good at turning wins into businesses, but they did acquire the wins handily. Microsoft wants to be that for the 2020s.

Able to replicate everything, for the new paradigm OpenAI's achievments probably represents.

The AI spreadsheet. The LLM email client. GPT search. Autobot jira. Literally and proverbially.

At least in theory... Microsoft is or will be in a position to start executing on all of these.

Sama, if he's actually motivated to do this.. it's pretty much the ideal person on planet earth for that task.

I'm sure takes a lot to motivate him. Otoh, CEO of Microsoft is it realistic prize if he wins this game. The man is basically Microsoft the person. I mean that as a compliment.. sort of.

One way or another, I expect that implementing OpenAI-ish models in applications is about commence.

Companies have been pleading chatbot customer support for years. They may get it soon, but so will the customers. That makes for a whole new thing in the place where customer support used to exist. At least, that is the bull case.

That said, I have said a lot. All speculative. I'll probabilistic, even where my speculations are correct. These are not really predictions. I'm chewing the cud.

75. __Matr+yA[view] [source] 2023-11-20 11:52:47
>>shubha+(OP)
If I had to make a list of companies that need shackles of that sort, Microsoft would definitely be top three or so.
◧◩◪
76. cyanyd+aC[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:05:45
>>cornho+R7
in theory, a nonprofit would demonstrate a government need and the nonprofit would be bought out by the government.

in America, nonprofits are just how rich people run around trying to get tax avoidance, plaudettes and now wealth transfers.

I doubt OpenAI is different not that Altman is anything but a figurehead.

but nonprofits in America is how the government has chosen to derelict it's duties.

replies(1): >>mlrtim+iF
◧◩◪
77. alchem+dC[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:06:10
>>meowki+ce
For those of us not following Microsoft super close, would it possible to ready a summary of the successes of Satya?

I sense a lot of respect and appreciation for his role, but unfortunately I just don’t know many details and I’m curious about the highlights.

replies(1): >>strike+zQ1
78. suslik+uC[view] [source] 2023-11-20 12:07:37
>>shubha+(OP)
Was GPT4 a success due to the brilliance of OpenAI's tech team vs first movers advantage and good GPU deals with MS? I might be missing something here, but to me nothing about this technology feels like rocket science (obviously, there is a lot of nuance, yada yada, but nothing that seems intractable). I have a strong suspicion that the reason Amazon, Google and so on are not particularly interested in building GPT-scale transformers is that they know they can do it anytime - they are just waiting for others to pave the path to actually good stuff.
replies(1): >>htrp+aL
◧◩
79. cyanyd+ZC[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:10:56
>>skille+Gb
right, they'll just steal it and watch a nonprofit try to enforce anything about it.
80. dkjaud+aD[view] [source] 2023-11-20 12:12:24
>>shubha+(OP)
> recruit the most formidable AI team in the world, removed from the shackles

Or at least the most hyped AI team in the world. The level of cult of personality around OpenAI is reaching pretty nauseating levels.

◧◩◪
81. DrBazz+pD[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:14:53
>>hughes+ve
And despite the above track record, he somehow managed to not accidentally buy Yahoo as well.
replies(1): >>hughes+ifx
◧◩◪◨
82. OptoCo+wD[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:15:28
>>belter+Tp
Wouldn't incident increase in forward movement of time where there would be a user increase as well?
◧◩
83. morale+7E[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:20:17
>>belter+ja
They didn't buy OpenAI, they got the best part of their team to develop new products for MS.
replies(1): >>ethanb+8I
◧◩◪◨
84. mlrtim+ME[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:24:43
>>belter+Tp
> 41% increase in status page incidents

Maybe they got funding for a proper incident team? Or changed the metrics of a incdient is, maybe the SLAs changed to mirror MS SLAs?

Also Betteridge's law.

◧◩
85. aeyes+YE[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:26:20
>>cycoma+ch
Looking at the list of people who have resigned it's quite obvious that the team goes where he goes.

Even if he does nothing, he keeps the team together and that is worth quite a bit.

◧◩◪◨
86. mlrtim+iF[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:28:20
>>cyanyd+aC
In your world yes, but in another, nonprofits are able to work in research that the Government should not, cannot or is too inefficient at ever getting working.

I'm no embarrased billionaire, but there is a place for both.

87. softwa+xF[view] [source] 2023-11-20 12:29:35
>>shubha+(OP)
TBH We are living in the outcome of the $10B investment. Google is in a weaker position in search, with egg on their face. Microsoft appears (with or without ChatGPT) uniquely positioned to monopolize on this new AI future we're heading into with or without OpenAI as a company.

Yes directly, the $10B investment in the company itself may be a write off. But it's not just about that.

88. visarg+QF[view] [source] 2023-11-20 12:31:45
>>shubha+(OP)
I'm wondering how Sam is going to work with Demis. Two master cooks in a kitchen/
◧◩
89. mlrtim+TF[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:32:13
>>cycoma+ch
If I was a SE/MLE at OpenAI , and I had a choice between the nonprofit OpenAI and MS, I'd follow Sam to MS. This is assuming I had profit sharing contracts in place.
replies(1): >>denton+8K
90. JumpCr+zG[view] [source] 2023-11-20 12:37:05
>>shubha+(OP)
> recruit the most formidable AI team in the world, removed from the shackles of an awkward non-profit owning a for-profit company

This massively increases the odds we’ll see AI regulated. That isn’t what Altman et al intended with their national press tour—the goal was to talk up the tech. But it should be good in the long run.

I also assume there will be litigation about what Sam et al can bring with them, and what they cannot.

91. Jayaku+1I[view] [source] 2023-11-20 12:45:53
>>shubha+(OP)
For Microsoft , 2% loss in stock value on this news on Friday was $60 billion, so writing off $10B and giving another $50B to form a team is still a great deal.

For Sam , he got more than what he was asking and a better prospect to become CEO of Microsoft when Satya leaves. Satya lead cloud division, which was the industry growth market at that time before becoming CEO and now sam is leading AI division , the next growth market.

Ilya still lost in all of this , he managed to get back the keys of a city from sam , who now got this keys to the whole country . Eventually sam will pull everyone out of the city in to rest of his country. Microsoft just needs a few openai employees to join them . They just need data and GPU , openai has reached its limits for getting more data and was begging for more private data while Microsoft holds worlds data, they will just give a few offers to business or free Microsoft products in return of using their data or use their own. I think it’s the end for openAI.

◧◩◪
92. ethanb+8I[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:46:12
>>morale+7E
What’s the evidence behind “they got the best part of their team?”

It seems to me roughly all of the value of OpenAI’s products is in the model itself and presumably the supporting infrastructure, neither of which seem like they’re going to MSFT (yet?).

replies(1): >>morale+vK
◧◩◪
93. underd+AI[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:49:42
>>alsodu+Ff
The Activision purchase is still way too new to judge.
replies(2): >>Origin+OZ1 >>ensign+Ol2
◧◩◪
94. svnt+RI[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:50:48
>>hef198+k2
You seem to have missed the entire point of the comment you’re replying to.

The money was promised in tranches, and probably much of it in the form of spare Azure capacity. Microsoft did not hand OpenAI a $10B check.

Satya gives away something he had excess of, and gets 75% of the profits that result from its use, and half of the resulting company. Gives him an excuse to hoard Nvidia GPUs.

If it goes to the moon he’s way up. If it dies he’s down only a fraction of the $10B. If it meanders along his costs are somewhat offset, and presumably he can exit at some point.

95. nytesk+xJ[view] [source] 2023-11-20 12:54:10
>>shubha+(OP)
Really? These two did not do the technical work but hired, managed, and fund raised.

They won’t necessarily be able to attract similar technical talent because they no longer have the open non profit mission not the lottery ticket startup PPO shares.

Working on AI at Microsoft was always an option even before they were hired, not sure if they tip the scale?

◧◩◪
96. bart_s+3K[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:57:40
>>cornho+R7
I think the last couple decades have demonstrated the dangers of corporate leadership beholden to whims of shareholders. Jack Welch-style management where the quarterly numbers always go up at the expense of the employee, the company, and the customer has proven to be great at building a house of cards that stands just long enough for select few to make fortunes before collapsing. In the case of companies like GE or Boeing, the fallout is the collapse of the company or a “few” hundred people losing their lives in place crashes. In the case of AI, the potential for societal-level destructive consequences is higher.

A non-profit is not by any means guaranteed to avoid the dangers of AI. But at a minimum it will avoid the greed-driven myopia that seems to be the default when companies are beholden to Wall Street shareholders.

replies(1): >>robert+tL1
◧◩◪
97. denton+8K[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:58:36
>>mlrtim+TF
There's a current fashion for tech "leaders" (bosses, really) to try to imbue in their staff a kind of cultish belief in the company and its leader. Personally, I find these efforts extremely offputting. I'm thinking of the kind of saccharine corporate presentations from people like Adam Neumann and Elizabeth Holmes; it evidently appeals to some kinds of people, but I run a mile from cults.

My guess is that a lot of the people that will follow Sam and Gregg are that kind of cult-follower.

replies(1): >>modern+xZ1
◧◩◪◨
98. morale+vK[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 12:59:56
>>ethanb+8I
Go to Twitter (X?) and search for "OpenAI is nothing without its people" and prepare to be mind blown.

It's seems like a cult right now, tbh.

replies(1): >>ethanb+2S
◧◩◪
99. pjerem+yK[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 13:00:32
>>chucke+Rv
> For business and for the consumer. They can retire Bing search at this point, making it Microsoft Copilot for Web or something.

Nah it would make it too understandable. It's Microsoft, they'll just rename Bing to Cortana Series X 365. And they'll keep Cortana alive but as a totally different product.

◧◩
100. htrp+aL[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 13:03:44
>>suslik+uC
>I have a strong suspicion that the reason Amazon, Google and so on are not particularly interested in building GPT-scale transformers is that they know they can do it anytime - they are just waiting for others to pave the path to actually good stuff.

Google has been hyping gemini since the spring (and not delivering it)

Amazon's Titan Model is not quite there yet.

◧◩◪◨
101. taspeo+eL[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 13:04:06
>>taspeo+k7
Plus if OpenAI implodes on itself they can write that investment down to zero.

So basically they get to control ChatGPT 2.0 and get a 10 billion tax credit for it.

Honestly the board at least owes Satya a drink.

102. iambat+1M[view] [source] 2023-11-20 13:09:44
>>shubha+(OP)
I basically agree - and it’s a weird cognitive shift to think that going to Microsoft is the best place for tech innovation today.

Credit to Nadella for making a big cultural shift over the past several years.

◧◩◪
103. meiral+uM[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 13:12:47
>>alsodu+Ff
> only to enable GitHub to do greater things, without disrupting user experience?

Excuse you? Greater where? Github was an amazing revolution, unique of its kind. Microsoft didn't kill it but didn't make it even 1% better for the users, just turned it into a cash cow. Linkedin is currently a PoS.

replies(1): >>tuwtuw+wZ1
◧◩
104. idopms+zN[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 13:18:39
>>cycoma+ch
> I really don't understand the argument here, why are Altman and Brockman the most formidable AI team?

Recruiting. At the end of the day, that's the most important job a CEO has. If they can recruit the best AI people, they're the most formidable AI team.

> Are they going to pay then >$1M salaries?

I would wager very heavily that they are. My guess is Satya more or less promised Sam that he'd match comp for anybody who wants to leave OpenAI.

◧◩◪◨⬒
105. ethanb+2S[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 13:37:49
>>morale+vK
A bit culty but am I to interpret this as, “if I post that the people are important to this company, I am going to resign?”
replies(1): >>morale+gU
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
106. morale+gU[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 13:46:31
>>ethanb+2S
Yes, it's how they pledge their alliance to @sama.

Whether they actually move to MS or not remains to be seen, but it is definitely a strong indicator that they're not "aligned" with OpenAI anymore.

replies(1): >>ethanb+VU
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
107. ethanb+VU[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 13:49:21
>>morale+gU
Eh, seems like an ambitious read, and obviously if they actually wanted to give Sam leverage it would’ve required saying “I will leave if he’s not reinstated,” not a more generic statement of solidarity.
replies(1): >>morale+c11
◧◩◪
108. sidibe+HV[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 13:51:57
>>noprom+ky
It's pretty naive IMO to think Google isn't going to come out with something that threatens OpenAI or Microsoft. It seems to be "they didn't do it yet so they won't ever" is the majority opinion here, but they have a ton of advantages when they finally do
replies(1): >>noprom+PB2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
109. morale+c11[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 14:10:00
>>ethanb+VU
Ok here it is, lol.

https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1726598360277356775?s...

replies(1): >>ethanb+Af1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
110. jacque+z51[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 14:23:29
>>rjtava+zo
Yes, that probably was a mistake, it should have come with more protections. But I haven't seen any documents on the governance other than what is in the media now and there is a fair chance that MS did have various protections but that the board simply ignored those.
111. mandee+vb1[view] [source] 2023-11-20 14:45:36
>>shubha+(OP)
> Microsoft would have to write-off its whole $10B (or more?) investment in OpenAI

Not sure why you didn’t research before saying that! It was $10B committed and not a cash handover of that amount. Also, majority of that’s Azure credits

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
112. ethanb+Af1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 15:06:24
>>morale+c11
Yeah this is much much less ambiguous than the Twitter things. At least answers my question of, "is there actually that much support for Altman?" Now the second question, much more important and still ambiguous IMO, is whether these people will actually resign to do this. The letter just says they "may" resign, which leaves really the last thing you want in an ultimatum like this: ambiguity.
◧◩
113. NanoYo+fl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 15:44:58
>>belter+ja
The Skype purchase was good for itself. It lead to Teams, which is dominating.
replies(4): >>SoftTa+sO1 >>novia+8S1 >>smcleo+pi2 >>Lammy+1B2
◧◩
114. bottle+Fr1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 16:21:44
>>bottle+p9
Wow I even got the number right.
◧◩◪◨
115. jacque+dB1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 17:04:51
>>tonyed+np
I can't see it in any other way.
◧◩◪◨
116. asdfas+fK1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 17:33:18
>>belter+Tp
Speaking as someone who uses github multiple times a day, I think I've only actually noticed 1-2 downtimes in the past year. On the other hand, I've used several of the beta features that have come out, including copilot and the evolving github actions.

GitHub is stronger now then it ever has been.

◧◩◪◨
117. robert+tL1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 17:37:50
>>bart_s+3K
I don't think cherry-picked examples mean much. But even so, you don't seem to be answering the question, which was "how will being a non-profit stop other people behaving unethically?"
◧◩◪
118. SoftTa+sO1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 17:48:52
>>NanoYo+fl1
The only people I know using Teams are the ones who are forced to by management fiat. I guess that's dominating, but not really in a positive way.
◧◩◪◨
119. strike+zQ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 17:55:09
>>alchem+dC
- Github Purchase, Linkedin Purchase - Aligned Microsoft towards "openness" culturally - VS Code + Typescript - Partnership with Open AI which might make bing actually be used

might be missing some more but Satya is like a S tier CEO, compared to Sundar who doesn't seem very good at his role.

replies(2): >>HankB9+5a2 >>codebo+Dd4
◧◩◪
120. novia+8S1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:00:46
>>NanoYo+fl1
Teams is dominating only because they bundle it with their other services. In my personal opinion, as someone who loved Skype before Microsoft got involved with it, Teams is complete trash, and impossible to work with in a business environment.
replies(1): >>ryanbr+5X1
◧◩◪◨
121. ryanbr+5X1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:17:56
>>novia+8S1
> Teams is dominating only because they bundle it with their other services.

This is a win from Microsoft's perspective. They don't have to have the best group messenger around, but having a significant office product being dominated by another company would be a massive risk to Microsoft, and Teams has prevented that.

replies(1): >>andai+S12
◧◩◪
122. ricard+7Y1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:21:46
>>cornho+R7
Look up the reason OpenAI was founded. The idea was exactly that someone would get there first, and it better be an entity with beneficial goals. So they set it up to advance the field - which they have been doing successfully - while having a strict charter that would ensure alignment with humanity (aka prevent it from becoming a profit-driven enterprise).
◧◩◪◨
123. tuwtuw+wZ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:27:00
>>meiral+uM
> didn't make it even 1% better for the users

I think it can be argued that giving free private repos to user is a 1% increase. Or what about private vulnerability reporting for open source projects. And so on. Github has gotten a lot of new free functionality since Microsoft bought it. It sounds like you just have not been paying attention.

Edit: Nevermind, I see you refer to Microsoft as M$. That really says it all.

◧◩◪◨
124. modern+xZ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:27:11
>>denton+8K
The cynicism that regards hero worship as comical is always shadowed by a sense of physical inferiority, Yukio Mishima. You reveal more here about your own psychology than those who have a mission that they believe in and are passionate about. It's always easy to criticise from the sidelines.
replies(1): >>norir+wb2
◧◩◪◨
125. Origin+OZ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:28:25
>>underd+AI
With the loyal customer base (aka addicts) for the bought IPs, the purchase can only be successful.
◧◩
126. dehrma+P02[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:31:40
>>leobg+49
Since the board was never clear what Altman did, you could make flip the parties and your breach of contract argument holds about as much water. Plus MS can resort to the playground "they started it" argument.
◧◩◪
127. andai+m12[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:33:33
>>alsodu+Ff
Despite porting it from Java to C++, Bedrock (Microsoft's rewrite of Minecraft) somehow has worse performance and bugs than vanilla Minecraft. (Also, a bunch of it is somehow in JavaScript?)
replies(1): >>ninth_+Zp2
◧◩◪◨⬒
128. andai+S12[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:35:35
>>ryanbr+5X1
So killing Skype was actually their goal? :(
◧◩
129. andai+x22[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:37:38
>>cycoma+ch
> Are they going to pay then >$1M salaries?

This sounds like hyperbole, but isn't that what China is doing?

◧◩
130. dehrma+F22[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:38:13
>>throw3+Ai
> for-profit company

Slashdot literally used to call them M$

◧◩
131. rmason+B32[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:41:15
>>belter+ja
Except the founders weren't included in the Skype deal. Microsoft has OpenAI's two founders and they're highly motivated to show that OpenAI is nothing without them which in time it may soon be. I openly await when Sam and Greg ship a product in say two years time.

Meanwhile Microsoft wins if OpenAI stays dominant and wins even bigger if Sam and Greg prevail. Some day soon they may teach this story at Harvard Business School.

◧◩
132. scheme+E62[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 18:50:40
>>belter+ja
Don't forget Microsoft buying aQuantive for $6 billion in 2007 and then taking a $6.2 billion dollar writedown 5 years later.
◧◩
133. pb7+n92[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 19:00:58
>>soderf+Hh
I would say given the stock's performance lately, Mark has been handling business pretty well.
◧◩◪◨⬒
134. HankB9+5a2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 19:04:12
>>strike+zQ1
Did MS do anything with Linux before Sataya? At present I believe that the bulk of their Azure hosts are running Linux - their own distro. And AFAIK it is successful.
replies(1): >>ls612+4j2
◧◩
135. notyou+eb2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 19:08:34
>>belter+ja
Not every swing is going to be a home run. Billion dollar investments sound like a lot but not for companies of this size. They are small to medium sized bets.
◧◩◪◨⬒
136. norir+wb2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 19:09:24
>>modern+xZ1
Mishima was quite physically beautiful so this claim feels rather convenient for him.
137. LrnByT+je2[view] [source] 2023-11-20 19:21:06
>>shubha+(OP)
This might have been a reasonable and workable solution for all parties involved.

Context:

---------

1.1/ ILya Sukhar and Board do not agree with Sam Altman vision of a) too fast commercialization of Open AI AND/OR b) too fast progression to GPT-5 level

1.2/ Sam Altman thinks fast iteration and Commercialization is needed in-order to make Open AI financially viable as it is burning too much cash and stay ahead of competition.

1.3/ Microsoft, after investing $10+ Billions do not want this fight enable slow progress of AI Commercialization and fall behind Google AI etc..

a workable solution:

--------------------

2.1/ @sama @gdb form a new AI company, let us call it e/acc Inc.

2.2/ e/acc Inc. raises $3 Billions as SAFE instrument from VCs who believed in Sam Altman's vision.

2.3/ Open AI and e/acc Inc. reach an agreement such that:

a) GPT-4 IP transferred to e/acc Inc., this IP transfer is valued as $8 Billion SAFE instrument investment from Open AI into e/acc Inc.

b) existing Microsoft's 49% share in Open AI is transferred to e/acc Inc., such that Microsoft owns 49% of e/acc Inc.

c) the resulted "Lean and pure non-profit Open AI" with Ilya Sukhar and Board can steer AI progress as they wish, their stake in e/acc Inc. will act as funding source to cover their future Research Costs.

d) employees can join from Open AI to e/acc Inc. as they wish with no antipoaching lawsuits from OpenAI

◧◩◪
138. smcleo+Ih2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 19:33:18
>>alsodu+Ff
GitHub has been significantly less reliable since Microsoft bought it and Actions has been a disaster of an experience.

Linkedin has not improved its problems with spam or content quality since Microsoft took over.

replies(2): >>jamesr+mq2 >>Comple+nc3
◧◩◪
139. smcleo+pi2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 19:35:38
>>NanoYo+fl1
And bad for users. Skype went downhill fast and Teams… well we all know what that’s like.
replies(1): >>menset+Ht2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
140. ls612+4j2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 19:37:50
>>HankB9+5a2
They did the bare minimum to let Linux based stuff run on Azure but other than that not much.
◧◩◪◨
141. ensign+Ol2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 19:49:44
>>underd+AI
MS is destined to be substantially better than their previous owners. Your right in that it may be too early to predict the financial success, but I am very happy to see MS as the new owners of Activision, no matter what happens.
◧◩◪◨
142. m00x+Jn2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 19:56:02
>>belter+Tp
Shipping code causes incidents. Microsoft has shipped more features on github in the year they acquired it than github did 5 years before that.
◧◩◪◨
143. ninth_+Zp2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 20:04:03
>>andai+m12
I don’t believe that is entirely accurate, but even if it was — the bedrock port has been extremely successful for Microsoft.
replies(1): >>andai+YW2
◧◩◪◨
144. jamesr+mq2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 20:05:18
>>smcleo+Ih2
> GitHub has been significantly less reliable since Microsoft bought it and Actions has been a disaster of an experience.

Not unreliable enough to be a problem though, and Actions seems to be a decent experience for plenty of people.

The simple fact with GitHub is that it is _the_ primary place to go looking for, or post your, open source code, and it is the go-to platform for the majority of companies looking for a solution to source code hosting.

Your comment about LinkedIn is true, but where is the nearest competition in its' space?

145. caycep+ct2[view] [source] 2023-11-20 20:14:14
>>shubha+(OP)
MS also has its own ML teams and is probably capable of replicating a lot of OpenAI without OpenAI.

Like some googlers have mentioned - aside from GPU requirements, there isn't much else of a moat since a lot of ML ideas are presented and debated relatively freely at NEURIPS, ICML and other places.

◧◩◪◨
146. menset+Ht2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 20:16:12
>>smcleo+pi2
Seconded, teams winning is horrible for users in the long run (no competition allowed), but great for MS and IT managers.
◧◩◪
147. Lammy+1B2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 20:45:24
>>NanoYo+fl1
It was also good for the security state https://www.theregister.com/2009/02/12/nsa_offers_billions_f...
◧◩◪◨
148. noprom+PB2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 20:49:08
>>sidibe+HV
What? I didn't say anything about the likelyhood of competition to state of the art.

You are imagining I fall in a crowd you've observed. Maintaining statute of the art ofc is a constant battle.

Google could be top dog in 2 weeks. Never insinuated otherwise. (though I predict otherwise, if we're gonna speculate)

Its not even relevant because each big firm is specializing to a degree. Anthropic is going for context window and safety... Bard is all about Google priorities... Ect

◧◩◪◨⬒
149. andai+YW2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 22:27:42
>>ninth_+Zp2
All three parts of what I said are true. What you say is also true.
◧◩◪
150. straaf+E73[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 23:24:31
>>alsodu+Ff
The problem with arguing with people like that who cherry pick is even after you provide examples, they will generally respond by just cherry-picking your examples instead of acknowledging the actual point you made
◧◩◪◨
151. Comple+nc3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 23:54:36
>>smcleo+Ih2
That's quite a goalpost shift. The original claim was that Microsoft ruins companies. Your rebuttal to LinkedIn as a counterexample is that they haven't made it better. This does not support the claim that they've ruined it.
replies(1): >>jamesn+oEm
◧◩◪◨⬒
152. codebo+Dd4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-21 07:54:11
>>strike+zQ1
No mention of Azure? Also, anyone not already using Bing Chat is missing out. It's been a good while since I had to google anything.
◧◩◪◨⬒
153. jamesn+oEm[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-27 12:31:25
>>Comple+nc3
We found the Micro$oft bootlicker
◧◩◪◨
154. hughes+ifx[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-30 11:34:07
>>DrBazz+pD
he was going to until a time traveler told he Yahoo's actually get rich accidentally in the future after investing in Alibaba so he couldn't bear it /s
[go to top]