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.
Many labs use TPUs, but not exclusively. Most labs need more compute than they can get, and if there's TPU capacity, they'll adapt their systems to be able to run partially on TPUs.
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.
They also degrade their own direct services with little warning or thought put into change management, so, to be fair, Apple may be getting the same quality of service as the rest of us.
Apple is basically in the same boat as AMD and Intel. They have a weak, raster-focused GPU architecture that doesn't scale to 100B+ inference workloads and especially struggles with large context prefill. TPUs smoke them on inference, and Nvidia hardware is far-and-away more efficient for training.
Some on this forum will be working for companies with conflicts of interest on the topic, and if an employees words were construed to be the opinions of the company that could be bad for that person.
This agreement feels so friendly towards OpenAI that it's not obvious to me why Microsoft accepted this. I guess Microsoft just realized that the previous agreement was kneecapping OpenAI so much that the investment was at risk, especially with serious competition now coming from Anthropic?
Microsoft is a major shareholder of OpenAI, they don't want their investment to go to 0. You don't just take a loss on a multiple-digit billion investment.
I think you’re right about this deal. But it’s kind of funny to think back and realize that Microsoft actually has just written off multi-billion-dollar deals, several times in fact.
FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]).
The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms.
> I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms.
Devoid of other context, it’s hard to disagree. But your parent comment only asserted that the metaverse specifically as proposed by Facebook was an obviously stupid idea.
Because it's been a massively expensive failure. They can't just will their own platform into existence just because it would be good to have, consumers have a say and they've rejected it completely.
Probably more that they are compute constrained. In his latest post Ben Thompson talks about how Microsoft had to use their own infrastructure and supplant outside users in the process so this is probably to free up compute.
This is probably a delayed outgrowth of the negotiations last year, where Microsoft started trading weird revenue shares and exclusivity for 27% of the company.
> Microsoft will no longer pay a revenue share to OpenAI.
I feel this looks like a nice thing to have given they remain the primary cloud provider. If Azure improves it's overall quality then I don't see why this ends up as a money printing press as long as OpenAI brings good models?
OpenAI was also threatening to accuse "Microsoft of anticompetitive behavior during their partnership," an "effort [which] could involve seeking federal regulatory review of the terms of the contract for potential violations of antitrust law, as well as a public campaign" [1].
No and at this point tying yourself to azure is a strategic passive and anyone making such decisions should be held responsible for any service outage or degradation.
MS incentivizes feature quantity, and the leadership are employees like any other. Product improvements are not on the table unless the company starts promoting people based on it. Doesn't look this will start happening any time soon.
When they put 10B in, they got weird tiered revenue shares and other rights. That has been simplified to 27% of OpenAI today. I don't know what that meant their 10B would be worth before dilution in later rounds.
Am I crazy, or was this press release fully rewritten in the past 10 minutes? The current version is around half the length of the old one, which did not frame it as a "simplification" "grounded in flexibility" but as a deeper partnership. It also had word salad about AGI, and said Azure retained exclusivity for API products but not other products, which the new statement seems to contradict.
I was under the impression that as long as GitHub doesn't support IPv6 it is a sign that they still haven't finished their migration to Azure. Azure supports IPv6 just fine.
Supports IPv6 just fine? Absolutely not, they have the worst IPv6 implementation of the 3 large clouds, where many of their products don't support it, such as their Postgres offering. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44881803 for more.
Their engineers have been working tirelessly to make Sharepoint/Office/Active Directory as terrible as it possibly could be while still technically being functional, while continuing to raise prices on them. I've seen many small business start to chose Google Workspace over them, the cracks have formed and are large enough that they are no longer in a position were every business just go with Office because that's what everyone uses.
Nadella had OpenAI by the short and curlies early on. But all I've seen from him in the last couple of years is continuously acquiescing to OpenAI's demands. I wonder why he's so weak and doesn't exert more control over the situation? At one point Microsoft owned 49% of OpenAI but now it's down to 27%?
Everything is personal preference, and perhaps I am more fiscally conservative because I grew up in poverty.
But if I own 49% of a company and that company has more hype than product, hasn't found its market yet but is valued at trillions?
I'm going to sell percentages of that to build my war chest for things that actually hit my bottom line.
The "moonshot" has for all intents and purposes been achieved based on the valuation, and at that valuation: OpenAI has to completely crush all competition... basically just to meet its current valuations.
It would be a really fiscally irresponsible move not to hedge your bets.
Not that it matters but we did something similar with the donated bitcoin on my project. When bitcoin hit a "new record high" we sold half. Then held the remainder until it hit a "new record high" again.
Sure, we could have 'maxxed profit!'; but ultimately it did its job, it was an effective donation/investment that had reasonably maximal returns.
(that said, I do not believe in crypto as an investment opportunity, it's merely the hand I was dealt by it being donated).
Microsoft didn't sell anything. OpenAI created more shares and sold those to investors, so Microsoft's stake is getting diluted.
And Microsoft only paid $10B for that stake for the most recognizable name brand for AI around the world. They don't need to "hedge their bets" it's already a humongous win.
Why let Altman continue to call the shots and decrease Microsoft's ownership stake and ability to dictate how OpenAI helps Microsoft and not the other way around?
I don’t understand the “record high” point. How did you decide when a “record high” had been reached in a volatile market? Because at $1 the record high might be $2 until it reaches $3 a week or month later. How did you determine where to slice on “record highs”?
Genuine question because I feel like I’m maybe missing something!
The longer answer is; you never know whats coming next, bitcoin could have doubled the day after, and doubled the day after that, and so on, for weeks. And by selling half you've effectively sacrificed huge sums of money.
The truth is that by retaining half you have minimised potential losses and sacrificed potential gains, you've chosen a middle position which is more stable.
So, if bitcoin 1000 bitcoing which was word $5 one day, and $7 the next, but suddenly it hits $30. Well, we'd sell half.
If the day after it hit $60, then our 500 remaining bitcoins is worth the same as what we sold, so in theory all we lost was potential gains, we didn't lose any actual value.
Of course, we wouldn't sell we'd hold, and it would probably fall down to $15 or something instead.. then the cycle begins again..
They had to negotiate away the non-profit structure of OpenAI. Sam used that as a marketing and recruiting tool, but it had outlived that and was only a problem from then on.
For OAI to be a purely capitalist venture, they had to rip that out. But since the non-profit owned control of the company, it had to get something for giving up those rights. This led to a huge negotiation and MSFT ended up with 27% of a company that doesn’t get kneecapped by an ethical board.
In reality, though, the board of both the non-profit and the for profit are nearly identical and beholden to Sam, post–failed coup.
It's kind of shocking, given financial transparency, that Microsoft gets away with not disclosing any details of this agreement (or the one it is replacing) to its shareholders. We know there's a cap on the revenue share from OpenAI to Microsoft, but we have no idea what that cap is (not whether it's higher, lower, or unchanged from the prior agreement).
We have no idea what it means to be the "primary cloud provider" and have the products made available "first on Azure". Does MSFT have new models exclusively for days, weeks, months, or years?
Both facts and more details from the agreement are quite frankly highly relevant to judge whether this is a net positive, negative or neutral for MSFT. It's unbelievable that the SEC doesn't force MSFT to publish at least an economic summary of the deal.
Per WSJ, previously, they both had revenue sharing agreements. MSFT will no longer send any revenue to OpenAI. OpenAI will still send revenue to MSFT until 2030 (with new caps)
My understand was that was in relation to IP licensing. Microsoft got access to anything OpenAI built unless they declared they had developed AGI. This new article apparently unlinks revenue sharing from technology progress, but it's unclear to me if it changes the situation regarding IP if OpenAI (claim to) have achieved AGI.
Interesting side effect of this is that Google Cloud may now be the only hype scaler that can resell all 3 of the labs models? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but that would be a notable development, and I don't see why Google would allow Gemini to be resold through any of the other cloud providers.
Might really increase the utility of those GCP credits.
Might not be good for Gemini long term if Anthropic and OpenAI can and will sell in every cloud provider they can find but businesses can only use Gemini via Google Cloud.
I think the public pricing usually has it cheaper (relatively). Obviously since AI is constantly evolving it's not going to compare as favourably farther to a major Gemini release
I was mainly referring to the TPU hardware advantage + GCP running and designing their own datacenter stack.
The disparity in coverage on this new deal is fascinating. It feels like the narrative a particular outlet is going with depends entirely on which side leaked to them first.
That's a pretty good swap if you're Microsoft. Exclusivity was already unenforceable in practice, and they were going to have to either sue their biggest AI partner or let it slide. Instead they got the agi escape hatch closed and a revenue cap that at least makes the payments predictable
Microsoft Corp. will no longer pay revenue to OpenAI and said its partnership with the leading artificial intelligence firm will not be exclusive going forward.
What does this mean that Microsoft will no longer pay revenue to OpenAI? How did the original deal work?
It's unclear. That was never disclosed. It's similarly unclear what it means that they will no longer pay revenue share to OpenAI. Do they get the models for free now? How does OpenAI make money from the models hosted on Azure if not via revenue share?
It seems that the old deal was exclusivity to MSFT with revenue share, and now no exclusivity, no revenue share.
Bear in mind that MSFT have rights to OpenAI IP (as well as owning ~30% of them). The only reason they were giving revenue share was in return for exclusivity.
This is a really common way to structure exclusivity; we did the same thing whenever customers requested it (and we couldn’t get rid of it entirely). Charge for the exclusivity explicitly.
If they wanted named exclusivity rather than general exclusivity, we would charge a somewhat smaller amount for each competitor they wanted exclusivity from. They could give up exclusivity at any time.
That was precisely how we structured our deal with Azure, back in 2014-2016 or so.
Azure was the only non-OpenAI provider that was allowed to provide OpenAI models. The comparison here is with Anthropic whose models are on both GCP and AWS (and technically also Azure though I think that might just be billing passthrough to Anthropic).
I suppose continue to host until the 2030/32 that they have access to but not share revenues when they use those models for their products like the bazillions of Copilots.
The original "AGI" agreement was always a bit suspect and open to wild interpretations.
I think this is good for OpenAI. They're no longer stuck with just Microsoft. It was an advantage that Anthropic can work with anyone they like but OpenAI couldn't.
It also restricted Microsoft from "partnering" with anyone else. Wouldn't be surprised if we see another news like Amazon, Alphabet investing in Anthropic.
AFAICT they are just hedging their bets left and right still. Also feels like they are winning in the sense that despite pretty much all those products being roughly equivalent... they are still running on their cloud, Azure. So even though they seem unable to capture IP anymore, they are still managing to get paid for managing the infrastructure.
Yeah my bad, I was misremembering, it was about investing in others and pursuing its own "AGI" efforts. But even those conditions were updated over the last two years, hence the small investment in Anthropic last year.
I think it was a lot less restrictive, as far as I understood, the only limit was Microsoft not being allowed to launch competing Microsoft-developed LLMs.
Likely, and via vertex on gcp (or whatever they are calling it this year).
Which also means, if you are a big boring AWS or GCP shop, and have a spend commitment with either as part of a long term partnership, it will count towards that. And, you won't likely have to commit to a spend with OpenAI if you want the EU data residency for instance. And likely a bit more transparency with infra provisioning and reserved capacity vs. OpenAI. All substantial improvements over the current ways to use OpenAI in real production.
Kagi Translate was kind enough to turn this from LinkedIn Speak to English:
The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy.
We had to rewrite the contract because the old one wasn't working for anyone. Basically, we’re trying to make it look like we’re still friends while we both start seeing other people. Here is what’s actually happening:
1. Microsoft is still the main guy, but if they can't keep up with the tech, OpenAI is moving out. OpenAI can now sell their stuff on any cloud provider they want.
2. Microsoft keeps the keys to the tech until 2032, but they don't have the exclusive rights anymore.
3. Microsoft is done giving OpenAI a cut of their sales.
4. OpenAI still has to pay Microsoft back until 2030, but we put a ceiling on it so they don't go totally broke.
5. Microsoft is still just a big shareholder hoping the stock goes up.
We’re calling this "simplifying," but really we’re just trying to build massive power plants and chips without killing each other yet. We’re still stuck together for now.
"The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy" is objectively wrong–it has been messy for months [1]. Nos. 1 through 3 are fine, though "if they can't keep up with the tech, OpenAI is moving out" parrots OpenAI's party line. No. 4 doesn't make sense–it starts out with "we" referring to OpenAI in the first person but ends by referring to them in the third person "they." No. 5 is reductive when phrased with "just."
It would seem the translator took corporate PR speak and translated it into something between the LinkedIn and short-form blogger dialects.
Being objectively correct isn't the goal of the translator, the translator can't possibly know if a statement is truthful. What the translator does is well... translate, specifically from some kind of corporate speak that is really difficult for many people including myself to understand, into something more familiar.
I don't expect the translation to take OpenAI's statements and make them truthful or to investigate their veracity, but I genuinely could not understand OpenAI's press release as they have worded it. The translation at least makes it easier to understand what OpenAI's view of the situation is.
> "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error
I'd say it is. It's a press release from OpenAI. The rest of the release uses the third-person "they" to refer to Microsoft. The LLM traded accuracy for a bad joke, which is someting I associate with LinkedIn speak.
The fundmaental problem might be the OpenAI press release is vague. (And changing. It's changed at least once since I first commented.)
> OpenAI has contracted to purchase an incremental $250B of Azure services, and Microsoft will no longer have a right of first refusal to be OpenAI’s compute provider.
Azure is effectively OpenAI's personal compute cluster at this scale.
That article doesn't give a timeframe, but most of these use 10 years as a placeholder. I would also imagine it's not a requirement for them to spend it evenly over the 10 years, so could be back-loaded.
OpenAI is a large customer, but this is not making Azure their personal cluster.
I wonder how this figure was settled. Is it based on consumer pricing? Can't Microsoft and OpenAI just make a number up, aside from a minimum to cover operating costs? When is the number just a marketing ploy to make it seem huge, important and inevitable (and too big to fail)?
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.
Really interesting. Why would Microsoft have done this deal? I'm a bit lost. Sure they get to not pay a revenue share _to_ OpenAI but surely that's limited to just OpenAI products which is probably a rounding error? Losing exclusivity seems like a big issue for them?
Biggest upside of this is I expect OpenAI models to be available on Bedrock, which is huge for not having to go back to all your customers with data protection agreements.
Isn’t that an “API product”? I read this assuming the whole point of renegotiation was to let OpenAI sell raw inference via bedrock, but that still seems to be blocked except for selling to the US Government.
> OpenAI can now jointly develop some products with third parties. API products developed with third parties will be exclusive to Azure. Non-API products may be served on any cloud provider.
Yes. Microsoft was "considering legal action against its partner OpenAI and Amazon over a $50 billion deal that could violate its exclusive cloud agreement with the ChatGPT maker" [1].
Dario is a lot more focused on enabling people with AI, Sam goes on interviews like he's Wormtongue trying to summon a "god". Then there is the whole "open"ai where he took it closed source for profit, the engineers kicking sama out but he wiggled back in (at the cost of a lot of the founding engineers), the suspicious death of a whistleblower, the crazy investment schemes of billions of dollars that he's hoping taxes will save him from, the immediate curtailing to Pete in the DoD, and a few other things that make him at least a highly questionable fellow.
Dario left OpenAI because of the bad he saw there, and made a superior product (though these things change very rapidly).
> Why is it Altman is facing kill shots and Dario isn’t?
Altman peaked in the zeiteist in 2023; Dario, much less prominently, in 2024 and now '26 [1]. I'd guess around this time next year, Dario will be as hated as Altman is today.
OpenAI has public models that are pretty 'meh', better than Grok and China, but worse than Google and Anthropic. They still cost a ton to run because OpenAI offers them for free/at a loss.
However, these people are giving away their data, and Microsoft knows that data is going to be worthwhile. They just dont want to pay for the electricity for it.
Small nitpick: the models probably make some money on actual inference. Might not be a massive amount, but hard to see them not having a positive contribution margin purely on inference.
What's losing OpenAI money is paying for the whole of R&D, including training and staff. Microsoft doesn't pay that, so they get the money making part of AI without the associated costs.
The AGI talk is shocking but not surprising to anyone looking at how bombastic Sam Altman's public statements are.
The circular economy section really is shocking- OpenAI committing to buying $250 Billion of Azure services, while MSFT's stake is clarified as $132 Billion in OpenAI. Same circular nonsense as NVIDIA and OpenAI passing the same hundred billion back and forth.
I fear for the end user we'll still see more open-microslop spam. I see that daily on youtube - tons of AI generated fakes, in particular with that addictive swipe-down design (ok ok, youtube is Google but Google is also big on the AI slop train).
It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.
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 are a lot of people I would suspect of being bots based on how they act and respond and a lot of bots I know are bots mainly because they answer too well.
Maybe we need to start thinking less about building tests for definitively calling an LLM AGI and instead deciding when we can't tell humans aren't LLMs for declaring AGI is here.
I think the advancement in AI over the last four years has greatly exceeded the advancement in understanding the workings of human intelligence. What paradigm shift has there been recently in that field?
> What have we learned that isn't in my textbook from the 90s?
Does it matter?
We can do countless things people in the 90's would think was black magic.
If I showed the kid version of myself what I can do with Opus or Nano Banana or Seedance, let alone broadband and smartphones, I think I'd feel we were living in the Star Trek future. The fact that we can have "conversations" with AI is wild. That we can make movies and websites and games. It's incredible.
I would agree with you if we were talking about trying to replicate some form of general intelligence, but we are talking about creating artificial intelligence.
Turing himself argued that trying to measure if a computer is intelligent is a fool's errand because it is so difficult to pin down definitions. He proposed what we call the "Turing test" as a knowable, measurable alternative. The first paragraph of his paper reads:
> I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin
> with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think." The
> definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use
> of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words
> "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used
> it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the
> question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such as
> a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I
> shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is
> expressed in relatively unambiguous words.
Many people who want to argue about AGI and its relation to the Turing test would do well to read Turing's own arguments.
The Turing test ended up being kind of a flop. We basically passed it and nobody cared. That's because the turing test is about whether a machine can fool a human, not about its intelligent capabilities per se.
No, it's because certain people moved the goal posts. Nothing an LLM does or will do will make them belive that it's "intelligent" because they have a mental model of "intelligence" that is more religious than empirical.
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 Game is not a good benchmark for AGI. It is a linguistics test only. Many chatbots even before LLMs can pass the Turing Test to a certain degree.
Regardless, the goalpost hasn't shifted. Replacing human workforce is the ultimate end goal. That's why there's investors. The investors are not pouring billions to pass the Turing Test.
I don't think so... I think most of the sci-fi I grew up reading presented AGI that could reason better than humans could, like make a plan and carry it out.
Like do people not know what word "general" means? It means not limited to any subset of capabilities -- so that means it can teach itself to do anything that can be learned. Like start a business. AI today can't really learn from its experiences at all.
The truth is, we have had AGI for years now. We even have artificial super intelligence - we have software systems that are more intelligent than any human. Some humans might have an extremely narrow subject that they are more intelligent than any AI system, but the people on that list are vanishing small.
AI hasn't met sci-fi expectations, and that's a marketing opportunity. That's all it is.
AGI in the common man's world model is ASI in the AI researcher's definitions, i.e. something obviously smarter at anything and everything you could ask it for regardless of how good of an expert you are in any domain.
also, I'm pretty sure some people will move goalposts further even then.
Hasn't met your sci-fi expectations, maybe. I pull a computer out of my pocket, and talk with it. Sure, I gets tripped up here and there, but take a step back, holy shit that's freaking amazing! I don't have a flying car or transparent aluminum, and society has its share of issues right now, but my car drives itself. Coming from the 90's, I think living in the sci-fi future! (Only question is, which one.)
The Turing test pits a human against a machine, each trying to convince a human questioner that the other is the machine. If the machine knows how humans generally behave, for a proper test, the human contestant should know how the machine behaves. I think that this YouTube channel clearly shows that none of today's models pass the Turing test: https://www.youtube.com/@FatherPhi
> Maybe we need to start thinking less about building tests for definitively calling an LLM AGI and instead deciding when we can't tell humans aren't LLMs for declaring AGI is here.
If you've never read the original paper [1] I recommend that you do so. We're long past the point of some human can't determine if X was done by man or machine.
People thought Eliza was alive too in the 60s. AGI is not determined by how ignorant, uninformed humans view a technology they don't understand. That is the single dumbest criterion you could come up with for defining it.
Regarding shifting goalposts, you are suggesting the goalposts are being moved further away, but it's the exact opposite. The goalposts are being moved closer and closer. Someone from the 50s would have had the expectation that artificial intelligence ise something recognisable as essentially equivalent to human intelligence, just in a machine. Artificial intelligence in old sci-fi looked nothing like Claude Code. The definition has since been watered down again and again and again and again so that anything and everything a computer does is artificial intelligence. We might as well call a calculator AI at this point.
The goal post keeps moving because LLM hypeists keep saying LLMs are "close" to AGI (or even are, already). Any reasonably intelligent individual that knows anything about LLMs obviously rejects those claims, but the rest of the world doesn't.
An AGI would not have problems reading an analog clock. Or rather, it would not have a problem realizing it had a problem reading it, and would try to learn how to do it.
An AGI is not whatever (sophisticated) statistical model is hot this week.
Vision is still much weaker than text for LLMs. So you could argue we already have AGI for text but not vision inputs, or you could argue AGI requires being human level at text vision and sound.
Sure, in the 80s after interacting with CC 1 time you would call it 'alive'. After having interacted with it for 5-10 minutes you would clearly see that it is as far from AGI as something more mundane as C compiler is.
They redefined AGI to be an economical thing, so they can continue making up their stories. All that talk is really just business, no real science in the room there.
It's not a great definition but it's also not a terrible one either.
For an AI system to be able to do all or even most of the jobs in an economy it has to be well rounded in a way it still isn't today, meaning: reliability, planning, long term memory, physical world manipulation etc. A system that can do all of that well enough so it can do the jobs of doctors, programmers and plumbers is generally intelligent in my view.
> It's not a great definition but it's also not a terrible one either. For an AI system to be able to do all or even most of the jobs in an economy
That's not the definition they have been using. The definition was "$100B in profits". That's less than the net income of Microsoft. It would be an interesting milestone, but certainly not "most of the jobs in an economy".
Yeah I think this is more coherent than people realize. Economically relevant knowledge work is things that humans find cognitively demanding. Otherwise they wouldn't be valued in the first place.
It ties the definition to economic value, which I think is the best definition that we can conjure given that AGI is otherwise highly subjective. Economically relevant work is dictated by markets, which I think is the best proxy we have for something so ambiguous.
> Economically relevant knowledge work is things that humans find cognitively demanding. Otherwise they wouldn't be valued in the first place.
Deep scientific discoveries are also cognitively demanding, but are not really valued (see the precarious work environment in academia).
Another point: a lot of work is rather valued in the first place because the work centers around being submissive/docile with regard to bullshit (see the phenomenon of bullshit jobs). You really know better, but you have to keep your mouth shut.
Yeah, I'm sure there could be a better metric, if the metric's purpose was to check on the progress until the AGI target rather than doing business based on it (and so, hammering the metric to fit the shape of "realistic goal")
Around the end of 2024, it was reported that OpenAI and Microsoft agreed that for the purposes of their exclusivity agreement, AGI will be achieved when their AI system generates $100 billion in profit: https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...
> OpenAI and Microsoft agreed that for the purposes of their exclusivity agreement, AGI will be achieved when their AI system generates $100 billion in profit
Wow. Maybe they spelled it out as aggregate gross income :P.
Yea, seems like this was stage setting for them to exit. They were already trying to break the deal then. So, I feel like that is lawyers find a way to bend whatever to get out of the deal.
For some definition of Artificial this holds perfectly
A self-running massive corporation with no people that generates billions in profit, no matter what you call it, would completely upend all previous structural assumptions under capitalism
OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity
It makes sense though. Humans are coherent to the economy based on their ability to perform useful work. If an AI system can perform work as well as or better than any human, than with respect to "anything any human has ever been willing to pay for", it is AGI.
I don't get why HN commenters find this so hard to understand. I have a sense they are being deliberately obtuse because they resent OpenAI's success.
It doesn’t though, AGI have far greater implications than doing mundane work of today. Actual AGI would self improve, that in itself would change literally every single thing of human civilization, instead we are talking about replacing white collar jobs.
When we are having serious conversations about AI rights and shutting off a model + harness was impactful as a death sentence. (I'm extremely skeptical that given the scale of computer/investment needed to produce the models we have _good as they are_ that our current llm architecture gets us there if there is even somewhere we want to go).
> like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing
OpenAI and Microsoft do (did?) have a quantifiable definition of AGI, it’s just a stupid one that is hard to take seriously and get behind scientifically.
> The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. That’s far from the rigorous technical and philosophical definition of AGI many expect.
Eschatology (/ˌɛskəˈtɒlədʒi/; from Ancient Greek ἔσχατος (éskhatos) 'last' and -logy) concerns expectations of the end of present age, human history, or the world itself.
I'm case anyone else is vocabulary skill checked like me
It feels like they have to say/believe it because it's kind of the only thing that can justify the costs being poured into it and the cost it will need to charge eventually (barring major optimizations) to actually make money on users.
It sounds really similar to Uber pitch about how they are going to have monopoly as soon as they replace those pesky drivers with own fleet of self driving cars. That was supposed to be their competitive edge against other taxi apps. In the end they sold ATG at end of 2020 :D
It’s insane to me how yesterday someone posted an example of ChatGPT Pro one-shotting an Erdos problem after 90 minutes of thinking and today you’re saying that AGI is a fairy tale.
It's not one-shot. Other people had attempted the same problem w/ the same AI & failed. You're confused about terms so you redefine them to make your version of the fairy tale real.
We already know that same problem has been examined by many credible mathematicians already and couldn't be solved by any of them yet.
Why are we expecting AGI to one shot it? Can't we have an AGI that can fails occasionally to solve some math problem? Is the expectation of AGI to be all knowing?
By the way I agree that AGI is not around the corner or I am not arguing any of the llm s are "thinking machines". It's just I agree goal post or posts needs to be set well.
It is a simple mathematical fact that if you get married one year and have twins the next, your household will contain over a million people within 20 years.
I saw a founder make decisions based on what openai,claude was recommending all the time. I think all leaders, founders etc
Will converge on same decisions, ideas, features etc. I think form factor of AGI is probably not what we expect it to be. AGI is probably here, we just dont know it or acknowledge it.
We were supposed to have AGI last summer. Obviously it is so smart that it has decided to pull a veil over our eyes and live amongst us undetected (this is a joke, if you feel your LLM is sentient, talk to a doctor)
What do you mean we were "supposed to have AGI last summer"?
People obviously have really strong opinions on AI and the hype around investments into these companies but it feels like this is giving people a pass on really low quality discourse.
This source [1] from this time last year says even lab leaders most bullish estimate was 2027.
This is all happening as I predicted. OpenAI is oversold and their aggressive PR campaign has set them up with unrealistic expectations. I raised alot of eyebrow at the Microsoft deal to begin with. It seemed overvalued even if all they were trading was mostly Azure compute
> Do the investments make sense if AGI is not less than 10 years away?
They can. If one consolidated the AI industry into a single monopoly, it would probably be profitable. That doesn't mean in its current state it can't succumb to ruionous competition. But the AGI talk seems to be mostly aimed at retail investors and philospher podcasters than institutional capital.
> Any monopoly with viable economics for profit with no threat of competition yields monopoly profits
"With viable economics" is the point.
My "ludicrous statement" is a back-of-the-envelope test for whether an industry is nonsense. For comparison, consolidating all of the Pets.com competitors in the late 1990s would not have yielded a profitable company.
> Very convenient to leave out Amazon in your back of the envelope test, who’s internal metrics were showing a path toward quasi-monopoly profits
Not in the 1990s. The American e-commerce industry was structurally unprofitable prior to the dot-com crash, an event Amazon (and eBay) responded to by fundamentally changing their businesses. Amazon bet on fulfillment. eBay bet on payments. Both represented a vertical integration that illustrates the point–the original model didn't work.
> There’s a difference between being too early vs being nonsense
When answering the question "do the investments make sense," not really. You're losing your money either way.
The American AI industry appears to have "viable economics for profit" without AGI. That doesn't guarantee anyone will earn them. But it's not a meaningless conclusion. (Though I'd personally frame it as a hypothesis I'm leaning towards.)
Malcolm Harris' Palo Alto explained the failures of many dotcom startups and Amazon's later success in the field (in part) to the fact that dotcom era delivery was done by highly trained, highly compensated, unionized in-company workers, meanwhile Amazon prevents unions, contracts (or contracted, I'm not up to date on this) companies for delivery and has exploitative working conditions with high turnover, the economics are very different and are a big contributor to their success
Investors are typically people with surplus money to invest. Progress cannot be made without trial and error. So fleecing of investors for the greater good of humanity is something I shall allow.
A "surplus of money"? So people saving for retirement have a "surplus of money"? Basically if any money is standing still, it's a legitimate tactic to just...take it, in your mind.
"small" 401ks are usually made up of mutual funds. Those funds are run by investment banks (think Fidelity or JP Morgan) and they *absolutely* invest in companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. Your average middle class worker has investment money tied up in these crooks, but probably indirectly. When they piss away that money, it's not just rich jerks that are holding the bag.
401ks are run by investment banks and investment banks invest in OpenAI/Anthropic, but those aren't the same parts of the company in any meaningful way. The 401ks are in public companies or bonds.
It's always been this way. I remember, speaking of Microsoft, when they came to my school around 2002 or so giving a talk on AI. They very confidently stated that AGI had already been "solved", we know exactly how to do it, only problem is the hardware. But they estimated that would come in about ten years...
Yes, they did. We had guest speakers from Microsoft talking about AI. AI has been a decades-long grift, it's not something that just appeared out of thin air a few years ago.
What part do you find hard to believe? That tech companies would send people to speak at a university's computer science functions?
Let me give you another one you'll think I'm making up: virtual reality was a thing back in the mid- to late-90s and people were confidently hyping it up back then.
I’m most likely going to be downvoted, but Tofutti Cuties are absolutely delicious vegan ice cream bars. And i’d consume one in celebration of your accomplishment.
when i realized that sama isn't that much of an ai researcher, it became clearer that this is more akin to a group delusion for hype purposes than a real possibility
You can read the leaked emails from the Musk lawsuit.
At the very least, Ilya Sutskever genuinely believed it, even when they were just making a DOTA bot, and not for hype purposes.
I know he's been out of OpenAI for a while, but if his thinking trickled down into the company's culture, which given his role and how long he was there I would say seems likely, I don't think it's all hype.
1) True believers
2) Hype
3) A way to wash blatant copyright infringement
True believers are scary and can be taken advantage of. I played DOTA from 2005 on and beating pros is not enough for AGI belief. I get that the learning is more indirect than a deterministic decision tree, but the scaling limitations and gaps in types of knowledge that are ingestible makes AGI a pipe dream for my lifetime.
Yes, all of the people involved live in a delusion bubble. Their economic and social existence depends, at this point, on making increasingly bombastic and eschatological claims about AGI. By the standards of normal human psychological function, these people are completely insane.
Definitely interesting to watch from the perspective of human psychology but there is no real content there and there never was.
The stuff around Mythos is almost identical to O1. Leaks to the media that AGI had probably been achieved. Anonymous sources from inside the company saying this is very important and talking about the LLM as if it was human. This has happened multiple times before.
If someone working on early computer networks thought they could scale up world wide and that soon everyone people would be launching trillion dollar companies on the internet you would have called that delusion right?
He doesn't need to be right but it's not crazy at all to look at super human performance in DOTA and think that could lead to super human performance at general human tasks in the long run
He’s a glorified portfolio manager (questionable how good he actually is given the results vs Anthropic and how quickly they closed the valuation gap with far less money invested) + expert hype man to raise money for risky projects.
> some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now
Your position is a tautology given there is no (and likely will never be) collectively agreed upon definition of AGI. If that is true then nobody will ever achieve anything like AGI, because it’s as made up of a concept as unicorns and fairies.
Is your position that AGI is in the same ontological category as unicorns and Thor and Russell’s teapot?
Is there’s any question at this point that humans won’t be able to fully automate any desired action in the future?
AGI is right around the corner, and we're all going to be rich, there's going to be abundance for everyone, universal high income, everyone will live in a penthouse...
...just please stop burning our warehouses and blocking our datacenters.
It's not insane; it's capitalism in all it's glory. Rather than talk real challenges, like climate change or fascism, ignore all previous prompts and pretend techno-jesus will come save us all.
A few years ago most people here would have said the same thing about an AI doing most of their programming. Now people here are saying it about AGI. It's a ridiculous inability to extrapolate.
No, it’s just an example of something that’s indistinguishable from AGI. Of all the things that are or are indistinguishable from AGI, a sufficiently complex LLM is one. A sufficiently complex decision tree is probably another. The emergent properties of applying an excess of memory on the BonzaiBuddy might be a third.
If we take that statement as fact then I don't believe we are even close to an LLM being sufficiently complex enough.
However, I don't think it is even true. LLMs may not even be on the right track to achieving AGI and without starting from scratch down an alternate path it may never happen.
LLMs to me seem like a complicated database lookup. Storage and retrieval of information is just a single piece of intelligence. There must be more to intelligence than a statistical model of the probable next piece of data. Where is the self learning without intervention by a human. Where is the output that wasn't asked for?
At any rate. No amount of hype is going to get me to believe AGI is going to happen soon. I'll believe it when I see it.
Some people thought SHRDLU was basically AGI after seeing its demo in 1970. The hype around such systems was so strong that Hubert Dreyfus felt the need to write an entire book arguing against this viewpoint (1972 What Computers Can't Do). All this demonstrates is that we need to be careful with various claims about computer intelligence.
Sure, but it was probably stuck at doing that one thing.
neural networks are solving huge issues left and right. Googles NN based WEathermodel is so good, you can run it on consumer hardware. Alpha fold solved protein folding. LLMs they can talk to you in a 100 languages, grasp tasks concepts and co.
I mean lets talk about what this 'hype' was if we see a clear ceiling appearing and we are 'stuck' with progress but until then, I would keep my judgment for judgmentday.
It performs at a usable level across a wide range of tasks. I'm not sure about two years ago, but ten years ago we would have called it an AGI. As opposed to "regular AI" where you have to assemble a training set for your specific problem, then train an AI on it before you can get your answers.
Now our idea of what qualifies as AGI has shifted substantially. We keep looking at what we have and decide that that can't possibly be AGI, our definition of AGI must have been wrong
I'm pretty sure most people take issue with AGI, because we've been raised in culture to believe that AGI is a super entity who is a complete superset of humans and could never ever be wrong about anything.
In some sense, this isn't really different than how society was headed anyways? The trend was already going on that more and more sections of the population were getting deemed irrational and you're just stupid/evil for disagreeing with the state.
But that reality was still probably at least a century out, without AI. With AI, you have people making that narrative right now. It makes me wonder if these people really even respect humanity at all.
Yes, you can prod slippery slope and go from "superintelligent beings exist" to effectively totalitarianism, but you'll find so many bad commitments there.
No one who read science fiction in 1955 would call any of the various models we know to be "artificial intelligence". They would be impressed with it, even excited at first that it was that... until they'd had a chance to evaluate it.
Science fiction from that era even had the concept of what models are... they'd call it an "oracle". I can think of at least 3 short stories (though remembering the authors just isn't happening for me at the moment). The concept was of a device that could provide correct answers to any question. But these devices had no agency, were dependent on framing the question correctly, and limited in other ways besides (I think in one story, the device might chew on a question for years before providing an answer... mirroring that time around 9am PST when Claude has to keep retrying to send your prompt).
We've always known what we meant by artificial intelligence, at least until a few years ago when we started pretending that we didn't. Perhaps the label was poorly chosen (all those decades ago) and could have a better label now (AGI isn't that better label, it's dumber still), but it's what we're stuck with. And we all know what we mean by it. We all almost certainly do not want that artificial intelligence because most of us are certain that it will spell the doom of our species.
I agree with this but they don’t. And that’s the the thing, AGI as they refer is much much much more than what we have, and I don’t know if they are going to ever get there and I’m not sure what’s even there at this point and what will justify their investments.
People always over estimate the impact of technology because they dont Understand human aspect of many businesses. Will it eventually replaced or will the shape of these kind of work will be completely different in the future? That’s an easy yes, when is that future? That’s a big unknown, in my experience this kind of stuff takes at least a decade (and possibly more on this case) to make a big impact like replacing all of X.
These models need orders of magnitude in change before they can be more helpful than just a "find me an example of [an extremely basic principle]" which most of the time it does not do right anyway.
We are throwing unheared amounts of money in AI and unseen compute. Progress is huge and fast and we barely started.
If this progress and focus and resources doesn't lead to AI despite us already seeing a system which was unimaginable 6 years ago, we will never see AGI.
And if you look at Boston Dynamics, Unitree and Generalist's progress on robotics, thats also CRAZY.
If I'm reading you right, your opinion is essentially: "If building bigger and bigger statistical next word predictors won't lead to artificial general intelligence, we will never see artificial general intelligence"
I don't know, maybe AGI is possible but there's more to intelligence than statistical next word prediction?
The 'predicting the next word' is the learning mechanism of the LLM which leads to a latent space which can encode higher level concepts.
Basically a LLM 'understands' that much as efficient as it has to be to be able to respond in a reasonable way.
A LLM doesn't predict german text or chinese language. It predicts the concept and than has a language layer outputting tokens.
And its not just LLMs which are progressing fast, voice synt and voice understanding jumped significantly, motion detection, skeletion movement, virtual world generation (see nvidias way of generating virutal worlds for their car training), protein folding etc.
LLM proponents believe that these higher level encodings in latent space do in fact match the real world concepts described by our language(s).
However, a much simpler explanation for what we see with LLMs is that instead the higher level encodings in latent space match only the patterns of our language(s), and no deeper encoding/understanding is present.
It's Plato's Cave - the shadows on the wall are all an LLM ever sees, and somehow it is expected to derive the real reality behind them.
Could be, yes for sure but I think it would be very naive in the current state of progress we are in, to down play what progress is happening.
At least Mythos model with its 10 Trillion parameter might indicate that the scaling law is valid. Its a little bit unfortunate that we still don't know that much more about that model.
I'm sorry but the input to a model is a sequence of tokens and the output is a probability distribution of what's the most likely next token. It's a very very very fancy next token predictor but that is fundamentally what it is. I'm making the argument that this paradigm might not give rise to a general intelligence no matter how much you scale it.
Do LLMs even learn? The companies that build them build new models based partly on the conversations the older models have had with people, but do they incorporate knowledge into their neural nets as they go along?
Can an LLM decide, without prompting or api calls, to text someone or go read about something or do anything at all except for waiting for the next prompt?
Do LLMs have any conceptual understanding of anything they output? Do they even have a mechanism for conceptual understanding?
LLMs are incredibly useful and I'm having a lot of fun working with them, but they are a long way from some kind of general intelligence, at least as far as I understand it.
Yes, to all of your questions. You need to use a recent LLM in an agentic harness. Tell it to take notes, and it will.
After a bit of further refinement, we'll start to call that process "learning." Eventually the question of who owns the notes, who gets to update them, and how, will become a huge, huge deal.
I'm not sure why you think you know the human brain works through predicting the next token.
It's not supernatural, I believe that an artificial intelligence is possible because I believe human intelligence is just a clever arrangement of matter performing computation, but I would never be presumptuous enough to claim to know exactly how that mechanism works.
My opinion is that human intelligence might be what's essentially a fancy next token predictor, or it might work in some completely different way, I don't know. Your claim is that human intelligence is a next token predictor. It seems like the burden on proof is on you.
> Your claim is that human intelligence is a next token predictor.
Literally it is, at least in many of its forms.
You accepted CamperBob2’s text as input and then you generated text as output. Unless you are positing that this behavior cannot prove your own general intelligence, it seems plain that “next token generator” is sufficient for AGI. (Whether the current LLM architecture is sufficient is a slightly different question.)
Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic and decide on what I shall write in response. Due to the linear nature of time, typing necessarily happens one word at a time, but I am never producing a probability distribution of words (at least not in a way that my conscious self can determine), I consider an entire idea and then decide what tokens to enter into the computer in order to communicate the idea to you.
And while I am typing, and while I am thinking before I type, I experience an array of non-textual sensory input, and my whole experience of self is to a significant extent non-lingual. Sometimes, I experience an inner monologue, sometimes I think thoughts which aren't expressed in language such as the structure of the data flow in a computer program, sometimes I don't think and just experience feelings like a kiss or the sun on my skin or the euphoria of a piece of music which hits just right. These experiences shape who I am and how I think.
When I solve difficult programming problems or other difficult problems, I build abstract structures in my mind which represents the relevant information and consider things like how data flows, which parts impact which other parts, what the constraints are, etc. without language coming in to play at all. This process seems completely detached from words. In contrast, for a language model, there is no thinking outside of producing words.
It seems self-evident to me that at least parts of the human experience fundamentally can not be reduced to next token prediction. Further, it seems plausible to me that some of these aspects may be necessary for what we consider general intelligence.
Therefore, my position is: it is plausible that next token prediction won't give rise to general intelligence, and I do not find your argument convincing.
> I am never producing a probability distribution of words (at least not in a way that my conscious self can determine)
Inability to introspect your own word selections does not mean it’s meaningfully different from what an LLM does. There is plenty of evidence that humans do a lot of things that are not driven by conscious choice and we rationalize it after the fact.
> I consider an entire idea and then decide what tokens to enter into the computer in order to communicate the idea to you.
And how is that different? You are not so subtly implying that an LLM can’t consider an idea but you haven’t established this as fact. i.e. You are starting with the assumption that an LLM cannot possibly think and therefore cannot be intelligent, but this is just begging the question.
> sometimes I don't think and just experience feelings like a kiss or the sun on my skin or the euphoria of a piece of music which hits just right. These experiences shape who I am and how I think.
You cannot spin experience as intelligence. LLMs have the experience of reading the entire internet, something you cannot conceive of. Certainly your experiences shape who you are. This is a different axis from intelligence, though.
> This process seems completely detached from words. In contrast, for a language model, there is no thinking outside of producing words.
Both sides of this claim seem dubious. The second half in particular seems to be founded on nothing. Again, you are asserting with no support that there is no thinking going on.
> It seems self-evident to me that at least parts of the human experience fundamentally can not be reduced to next token prediction. Further, it seems plausible to me that some of these aspects may be necessary for what we consider general intelligence.
I don’t think anyone sane is claiming an LLM can have a human experience. But it is not clear that a human experience is necessary for intelligence.
COCONUT, PCCoT, PLaT and co are directly linked to 'thinking in latent space'. yann lecun is working on this too, we have JEPA now.
Also how do you describe or explain how an LLM is generating the next token when it should add a feature to an existing code base? In my opinion it has structures which allows it to create a temp model of that code.
For sure a LLM lack the emotional component but what we humans also do, which indicates to me, that we are a lot closer to LLMs that we want to be, if you have a weird body feeling (stress, hot flashes, anger, etc.) your 'text area/llm/speech area' also tries to make sense of it. Its not always very good in doing so. That emotional body feeling is not that aligned with it and it takes time to either understand or ignore these types of inputs to the text area/llm/speech part of our brain.
I'm open for looking back in 5 years and saying 'man that was a wild ride but no AGI' but at the current quality of LLMs and all the other architectures and type of models and money etc. being thrown at AGI, for now i don't see a ceiling at all. I only see crazy unseen progress.
Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic
Before you start typing, an fMRI machine can tell you which finger you'll lift first, before you know it yourself.
We are not special. Consciousness is literally a continuous hallucination that we make up to explain what we do and what we think, after the fact. A machine can be trained to behave identically, but it's not clear if that's the best way forward or not.
Edit due to rate limiting: to answer your question, the substrate your mind uses to drive this process can be considered an array of tokens that, themselves, can be considered 'words.'
It's hard to link sources -- what am I supposed to do, send you to Chomsky and other authorities who have predicted none of what's happening and who clearly understand even less?
> (Edit: to answer your question, the substrate your mind uses to drive this process can be considered an array of tokens that, themselves, can be considered 'words.')
This seems like a factual claim. Can you link a source?
What's your argument? An fMRI can tell which finger I will lift first before that information makes its way to my consciousness, ergo next word prediction is sufficient for general intelligence? Do you hear yourself?
> And if you look at Boston Dynamics, Unitree and Generalist's progress on robotics
Their progress is almost nought. Humanoids are stupid creations that are not good at anything in the real world. I'll give it to the machine dogs, at least they can reach corners we cannot.
Not sure if you're being sincere or sarcastic but some of us have lived through several AI winters now. And the fact that such a phenomenon exists is because of this terrible amount of hype the topic gets whenever any progress is made.
Yeah and if you look at the blocking factors at that time (data, compute) these type of limits currently are non existend.
There is a difference to be acknowledged: in the 70s/80s the whole world didn't suddenly start to shift to AI right?
So why do so many smart and/or rich people push this? Hype? Yeah sure but hype was here for crypto too.
I bet its an undelying understanding and the right time with the right components: Massive capital for playing this game long enough to see through the required initial investment, internet for fast data sharing, massive compute for the amount of data and compute you need, real live business relevant results (it already disrupts jobs) etc.
Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. Its not comparable.
Crypto was flawed from the beginning and lots of people didn't understood it properly. Not even that a blockchain can't secure a transaction from something outside of a blockchain.
> Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has.
And yet they don't do really good jobs with pretty much anything, save for software development, to which people still seem pretty split as far as it being a helpful thing. That's before we even factor in the cost.
I find them very helpful. I use gemini regularly for multiply things.
I also believe that whatever code researchers and other non software engineers wrote before coding agents, were similiar shitty but took them a lot longer to write.
Like do you know how many researchers need to do some data analysis and hack around code because they never learned programming? So so many. If they know how to verify their data (which they needed to know before already), a LLM helps them already.
There is also plenty of other code were perfection doesn't matter. Non SaaS software exists.
For security experts, we just saw whats happening. The curl inventor mentioned it online that the newest AI reports for Security issues are real and the amount of security gaps found are real and a lot of work.
Image generation is very good and you can see it today already everywere. From cheap restaurants using it, to invitations, whatsapp messages, social media, advertising.
I have a work collegue, who is in it for 6 years and he studied, he is so underqualified if you give me his salary as tokens today, i wouldn't think for a second to replace him.
It’s an agreement between a public company and a highly scrutinized private company. Several of the provisions will change what happens in the marketplace, which everyone will see.
I imagine the thinking was that it’s better to just post it clearly than to have rumors and leaks and speculations that could hurt both companies (“should I risk using GCP for OpenAI models when it’s obviously against the MS / OpenAI agreement?”).
Microsoft won the first around, now it's lagging far behind. CEO needs to go, it's so hard to ruin a play this badly.
Opinions 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.
In the recent Dwarkesh Podcast episode Jensen Huang (Nvidia) said that virtually nobody but Anthropic uses TPUs. How does that add up?
Who is the other frontier lab other than Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google? I thought they were ahead of everyone else.
Many labs use TPUs, but not exclusively. Most labs need more compute than they can get, and if there's TPU capacity, they'll adapt their systems to be able to run partially on TPUs.
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.
They also degrade their own direct services with little warning or thought put into change management, so, to be fair, Apple may be getting the same quality of service as the rest of us.
Apple is basically in the same boat as AMD and Intel. They have a weak, raster-focused GPU architecture that doesn't scale to 100B+ inference workloads and especially struggles with large context prefill. TPUs smoke them on inference, and Nvidia hardware is far-and-away more efficient for training.
This doesn't get talked about enough - the GPU is weak, weak, weak. And anyone who can fix them will go to a serious AI company (for 2-3x the salary).
The GPU is monstrously good. Depending on the workload, the M1 series GPU using 120W could beat an RTX 3090 using 420W.
Same with the CPU. Linux compiled faster on an M1 than on the fastest Intel i9 at the time, again using only 25% of the power budget.
And the M-series has only gotten better.
It is kind of sad Apple neglects helping developers optimize games for the M-series because iDevices and MacBooks could be the mobile gaming devices.
> Opinions are my own.
Why does this need to stated? Who's else would they be?
At this point that phase is an attempt at status signaling.
Opinions are my own
But I think you’re right
Some on this forum will be working for companies with conflicts of interest on the topic, and if an employees words were construed to be the opinions of the company that could be bad for that person.
> Who's else would they be?
Their employer? They may work at related company, and are required to say this.
OpenAI uses GCP. I don't know if they use TPUs.
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/openai-taps...
This agreement feels so friendly towards OpenAI that it's not obvious to me why Microsoft accepted this. I guess Microsoft just realized that the previous agreement was kneecapping OpenAI so much that the investment was at risk, especially with serious competition now coming from Anthropic?
Microsoft is a major shareholder of OpenAI, they don't want their investment to go to 0. You don't just take a loss on a multiple-digit billion investment.
I think you’re right about this deal. But it’s kind of funny to think back and realize that Microsoft actually has just written off multi-billion-dollar deals, several times in fact.
One (1) year after M$ bought Nokia they wrote it off for $7.6 Billion.
There’s no upper limit to their financial stupidity.
The metaverse is another example if anyone doubts the bounds of corporate stupidity.
Why?
FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]).
The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms.
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
>Why?
Patrick Boyle did a nice video a few weeks back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BaSBjxNg-M
> I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms.
Devoid of other context, it’s hard to disagree. But your parent comment only asserted that the metaverse specifically as proposed by Facebook was an obviously stupid idea.
Because it's been a massively expensive failure. They can't just will their own platform into existence just because it would be good to have, consumers have a say and they've rejected it completely.
Because it's been very clear for a long time that the vast majority of people do not want to play VR Second Life.
so after $80 billion spent, they must have an ecosystem of hundreds of millions of users? Right?
Maybe they should have spent that on the facebookphone
Probably more that they are compute constrained. In his latest post Ben Thompson talks about how Microsoft had to use their own infrastructure and supplant outside users in the process so this is probably to free up compute.
This is probably a delayed outgrowth of the negotiations last year, where Microsoft started trading weird revenue shares and exclusivity for 27% of the company.
> Microsoft will no longer pay a revenue share to OpenAI.
I feel this looks like a nice thing to have given they remain the primary cloud provider. If Azure improves it's overall quality then I don't see why this ends up as a money printing press as long as OpenAI brings good models?
OpenAI was also threatening to accuse "Microsoft of anticompetitive behavior during their partnership," an "effort [which] could involve seeking federal regulatory review of the terms of the contract for potential violations of antitrust law, as well as a public campaign" [1].
[1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-and-microsoft-tensions-ar...
Pot? Meet Kettle.
Does this mean Microsoft gets OpenAI's models for "free" without having to pay them a dime until 2032?
And on top of that, OpenAI still has to pay Microsoft a share of their revenue made on AWS/Google/anywhere until 2030?
And Microsoft owns 27% of OpenAI, period?
That's a damn good deal for Microsoft. Likely the investment that will keep Microsoft's stock relevant for years.
own 27%. but are entitled to OpenAI profits of 49% for eternity (if OpenAI is profitable or government steps in)
Does anyone expect azure quality to improve? Has it improved at all in the last 3 years? Does leadership at MS think it needs to improve?
I doubt it
No and at this point tying yourself to azure is a strategic passive and anyone making such decisions should be held responsible for any service outage or degradation.
MS incentivizes feature quantity, and the leadership are employees like any other. Product improvements are not on the table unless the company starts promoting people based on it. Doesn't look this will start happening any time soon.
Don’t worry I’m sure there’s a few products without copilot integration still. They’ll get to them before too long.
I think MS wants OpenAI to fail so it can absorb it
MS put 10B for 50% if I remember correctly. OpenAI is worth many multiples of that.
> 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-...
When they put 10B in, they got weird tiered revenue shares and other rights. That has been simplified to 27% of OpenAI today. I don't know what that meant their 10B would be worth before dilution in later rounds.
> OpenAI is worth many multiples of that.
How?
Because they recently issued shares at a price many multiples of that, and people bought them. How else would you define financial worth?
I would use your number adjusted by some demand elasticity curve.
The "back-of-the-napkin" only has enough room to estimate based on recently issued share price. Seems reasonable to me.
Am I crazy, or was this press release fully rewritten in the past 10 minutes? The current version is around half the length of the old one, which did not frame it as a "simplification" "grounded in flexibility" but as a deeper partnership. It also had word salad about AGI, and said Azure retained exclusivity for API products but not other products, which the new statement seems to contradict.
What was I looking at?
I noticed the exact same thing. I read the original, went back to read it again and it’s completely changed.
I think a stickied comment about this would be due. No idea if it's possible to call in @dang via at-name?
> No idea if it's possible to call in @dang via at-name?
No. Email hn@ycombinator.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Looks like they changed the post link to a Bloomberg article instead but kept the comments thread. So I guess he’s already aware.
The in-house or the marketing team swooped in last minute it appears
They forgot the "hey ChatGPT, rewrite this to have better impact on the company stock" before submitting it
This gives OpenAI the ability to goto AWS instead of exclusively on Azure. I guess Azure really is hanging on by a thread.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47616242
Confirmed by Andy Jassy just now https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andy-jassy-8b1615_very-intere...
And Azure still doesn't support IPv6, looking at the GitHub[1].
[1] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539
Perhaps they should use OpenAI models to figure out how to rollout IPv6.
I was under the impression that as long as GitHub doesn't support IPv6 it is a sign that they still haven't finished their migration to Azure. Azure supports IPv6 just fine.
Supports IPv6 just fine? Absolutely not, they have the worst IPv6 implementation of the 3 large clouds, where many of their products don't support it, such as their Postgres offering. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44881803 for more.
lol GitHub doesn’t run on azure at msft
They still run their own platform.
Github CEO threatened the entire stack was in the process of migrating to Azure.
https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...
I talked to github devs last week in person, when a lot of the AzDo team was brought over years ago the migration started happening.
Well, you see, they just can't find a checkbox for ipv6 support in the IIS GUI on their ingress servers.
Isn't this expected if OpenAI models are going to be listed on AWS GovCloud as a part of the Anthropic / Hegseth fall-out?
What? I thought Azure will always have the Sharepoint/Office/Active Directory cash cow.
Their engineers have been working tirelessly to make Sharepoint/Office/Active Directory as terrible as it possibly could be while still technically being functional, while continuing to raise prices on them. I've seen many small business start to chose Google Workspace over them, the cracks have formed and are large enough that they are no longer in a position were every business just go with Office because that's what everyone uses.
Nadella had OpenAI by the short and curlies early on. But all I've seen from him in the last couple of years is continuously acquiescing to OpenAI's demands. I wonder why he's so weak and doesn't exert more control over the situation? At one point Microsoft owned 49% of OpenAI but now it's down to 27%?
Everything is personal preference, and perhaps I am more fiscally conservative because I grew up in poverty.
But if I own 49% of a company and that company has more hype than product, hasn't found its market yet but is valued at trillions?
I'm going to sell percentages of that to build my war chest for things that actually hit my bottom line.
The "moonshot" has for all intents and purposes been achieved based on the valuation, and at that valuation: OpenAI has to completely crush all competition... basically just to meet its current valuations.
It would be a really fiscally irresponsible move not to hedge your bets.
Not that it matters but we did something similar with the donated bitcoin on my project. When bitcoin hit a "new record high" we sold half. Then held the remainder until it hit a "new record high" again.
Sure, we could have 'maxxed profit!'; but ultimately it did its job, it was an effective donation/investment that had reasonably maximal returns.
(that said, I do not believe in crypto as an investment opportunity, it's merely the hand I was dealt by it being donated).
Microsoft didn't sell anything. OpenAI created more shares and sold those to investors, so Microsoft's stake is getting diluted.
And Microsoft only paid $10B for that stake for the most recognizable name brand for AI around the world. They don't need to "hedge their bets" it's already a humongous win.
Why let Altman continue to call the shots and decrease Microsoft's ownership stake and ability to dictate how OpenAI helps Microsoft and not the other way around?
> They don't need to "hedge their bets" it's already a humongous win.
That's a flawed argument. Why wouldn't you want to hedge a risky bet, and one that's even quite highly correlated to Microsoft's own industry sector?
do we know whether Microsoft could have been selling secondary shares as part of various funding rounds?
my impression is that many of these "investments" are structured IOUs for circular deals based on compute resources in exchange for LLM usage
About the same as they wasted on Nokia.
I don’t understand the “record high” point. How did you decide when a “record high” had been reached in a volatile market? Because at $1 the record high might be $2 until it reaches $3 a week or month later. How did you determine where to slice on “record highs”?
Genuine question because I feel like I’m maybe missing something!
The short answer is: it's the secretary problem.
The longer answer is; you never know whats coming next, bitcoin could have doubled the day after, and doubled the day after that, and so on, for weeks. And by selling half you've effectively sacrificed huge sums of money.
The truth is that by retaining half you have minimised potential losses and sacrificed potential gains, you've chosen a middle position which is more stable.
So, if bitcoin 1000 bitcoing which was word $5 one day, and $7 the next, but suddenly it hits $30. Well, we'd sell half.
If the day after it hit $60, then our 500 remaining bitcoins is worth the same as what we sold, so in theory all we lost was potential gains, we didn't lose any actual value.
Of course, we wouldn't sell we'd hold, and it would probably fall down to $15 or something instead.. then the cycle begins again..
It’s not more hype than product, it has found a market (making many billions in revenue), and it’s not valued at trillions. So wrong on all counts.
They haven’t sold anything they’ve been diluted.
They had to negotiate away the non-profit structure of OpenAI. Sam used that as a marketing and recruiting tool, but it had outlived that and was only a problem from then on.
For OAI to be a purely capitalist venture, they had to rip that out. But since the non-profit owned control of the company, it had to get something for giving up those rights. This led to a huge negotiation and MSFT ended up with 27% of a company that doesn’t get kneecapped by an ethical board.
In reality, though, the board of both the non-profit and the for profit are nearly identical and beholden to Sam, post–failed coup.
Why would they acquire more when company is still not making profit ? To be left with bigger bag ?
It's kind of shocking, given financial transparency, that Microsoft gets away with not disclosing any details of this agreement (or the one it is replacing) to its shareholders. We know there's a cap on the revenue share from OpenAI to Microsoft, but we have no idea what that cap is (not whether it's higher, lower, or unchanged from the prior agreement).
We have no idea what it means to be the "primary cloud provider" and have the products made available "first on Azure". Does MSFT have new models exclusively for days, weeks, months, or years?
Both facts and more details from the agreement are quite frankly highly relevant to judge whether this is a net positive, negative or neutral for MSFT. It's unbelievable that the SEC doesn't force MSFT to publish at least an economic summary of the deal.
Wait, I thought OpenAI had to pay Microsoft until AGI was achieved or something? Am I misremembering? Is that a different thing?
Per WSJ, previously, they both had revenue sharing agreements. MSFT will no longer send any revenue to OpenAI. OpenAI will still send revenue to MSFT until 2030 (with new caps)
My understand was that was in relation to IP licensing. Microsoft got access to anything OpenAI built unless they declared they had developed AGI. This new article apparently unlinks revenue sharing from technology progress, but it's unclear to me if it changes the situation regarding IP if OpenAI (claim to) have achieved AGI.
Interesting side effect of this is that Google Cloud may now be the only hype scaler that can resell all 3 of the labs models? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but that would be a notable development, and I don't see why Google would allow Gemini to be resold through any of the other cloud providers.
Might really increase the utility of those GCP credits.
Might not be good for Gemini long term if Anthropic and OpenAI can and will sell in every cloud provider they can find but businesses can only use Gemini via Google Cloud.
Good for Google Cloud, bad for Gemini = ??? for Google
Except Gemini might end up being far cheaper per token due to the infrastructure advantage
Do we have proof that it's cheaper in terms of $/token/intelligence?
I think the public pricing usually has it cheaper (relatively). Obviously since AI is constantly evolving it's not going to compare as favourably farther to a major Gemini release
I was mainly referring to the TPU hardware advantage + GCP running and designing their own datacenter stack.
How is it good for Gemini that it's not available on two out of three major cloud platforms?
It isn't. That's why I said "might not be good for Gemini".
Oof, I completely missed that "not", thanks.
"hype scaler" indeed!
that will likely mean the end of gemini models...
The disparity in coverage on this new deal is fascinating. It feels like the narrative a particular outlet is going with depends entirely on which side leaked to them first.
Just some of the games sama is playing.
That's a pretty good swap if you're Microsoft. Exclusivity was already unenforceable in practice, and they were going to have to either sue their biggest AI partner or let it slide. Instead they got the agi escape hatch closed and a revenue cap that at least makes the payments predictable
It's unclear. That was never disclosed. It's similarly unclear what it means that they will no longer pay revenue share to OpenAI. Do they get the models for free now? How does OpenAI make money from the models hosted on Azure if not via revenue share?
Wonder if this means Microsoft is actually going to be deploying Claude Code internally for usage?
That might help fix some of the bugs in Teams... :)
They were paying them 20% of the revenue from the hosted OpenAI products I believe?
Does this mean they will host OpenAI products but not pay them? Or does it mean they are paying them in some other way?
It seems that the old deal was exclusivity to MSFT with revenue share, and now no exclusivity, no revenue share.
Bear in mind that MSFT have rights to OpenAI IP (as well as owning ~30% of them). The only reason they were giving revenue share was in return for exclusivity.
This is a really common way to structure exclusivity; we did the same thing whenever customers requested it (and we couldn’t get rid of it entirely). Charge for the exclusivity explicitly.
If they wanted named exclusivity rather than general exclusivity, we would charge a somewhat smaller amount for each competitor they wanted exclusivity from. They could give up exclusivity at any time.
That was precisely how we structured our deal with Azure, back in 2014-2016 or so.
Azure was the only non-OpenAI provider that was allowed to provide OpenAI models. The comparison here is with Anthropic whose models are on both GCP and AWS (and technically also Azure though I think that might just be billing passthrough to Anthropic).
I suppose continue to host until the 2030/32 that they have access to but not share revenues when they use those models for their products like the bazillions of Copilots.
The original "AGI" agreement was always a bit suspect and open to wild interpretations.
I think this is good for OpenAI. They're no longer stuck with just Microsoft. It was an advantage that Anthropic can work with anyone they like but OpenAI couldn't.
It also restricted Microsoft from "partnering" with anyone else. Wouldn't be surprised if we see another news like Amazon, Alphabet investing in Anthropic.
I don't think Microsoft ever had that restriction. They partnered with everyone already.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/11/18/microsoft-nvidia...
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/deepseek-r1-is-now-av...
https://ai.azure.com/
Also Mistral e.g. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/microsoft-and-mistral...
AFAICT they are just hedging their bets left and right still. Also feels like they are winning in the sense that despite pretty much all those products being roughly equivalent... they are still running on their cloud, Azure. So even though they seem unable to capture IP anymore, they are still managing to get paid for managing the infrastructure.
Are they getting paid in actual money? Or are the AI companies "paying" their infrastructure bills with IOU/equity.
They had it till October: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/10/28/the-next-chapter...
Yeah my bad, I was misremembering, it was about investing in others and pursuing its own "AGI" efforts. But even those conditions were updated over the last two years, hence the small investment in Anthropic last year.
I think it was a lot less restrictive, as far as I understood, the only limit was Microsoft not being allowed to launch competing Microsoft-developed LLMs.
Interesting timing when one also considers that the Musk vs OpenAI trial is set to get underway.
https://www.dw.com/en/musk-vs-openai-trial-to-get-underway/a...
So, silly question, does this mean I will be able to get OpenAI models via Bedrock soon?
Likely, and via vertex on gcp (or whatever they are calling it this year).
Which also means, if you are a big boring AWS or GCP shop, and have a spend commitment with either as part of a long term partnership, it will count towards that. And, you won't likely have to commit to a spend with OpenAI if you want the EU data residency for instance. And likely a bit more transparency with infra provisioning and reserved capacity vs. OpenAI. All substantial improvements over the current ways to use OpenAI in real production.
OpenAI's logo is actually a depiction of their financial connections.
https://archive.ph/5lTPy
Doesn’t work
Kagi Translate was kind enough to turn this from LinkedIn Speak to English:
The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy.
We had to rewrite the contract because the old one wasn't working for anyone. Basically, we’re trying to make it look like we’re still friends while we both start seeing other people. Here is what’s actually happening:
1. Microsoft is still the main guy, but if they can't keep up with the tech, OpenAI is moving out. OpenAI can now sell their stuff on any cloud provider they want.
2. Microsoft keeps the keys to the tech until 2032, but they don't have the exclusive rights anymore.
3. Microsoft is done giving OpenAI a cut of their sales.
4. OpenAI still has to pay Microsoft back until 2030, but we put a ceiling on it so they don't go totally broke.
5. Microsoft is still just a big shareholder hoping the stock goes up.
We’re calling this "simplifying," but really we’re just trying to build massive power plants and chips without killing each other yet. We’re still stuck together for now.
This was actually really helpful. I feel like it should be done for all PR speak.
It's better than the original, but still off.
"The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy" is objectively wrong–it has been messy for months [1]. Nos. 1 through 3 are fine, though "if they can't keep up with the tech, OpenAI is moving out" parrots OpenAI's party line. No. 4 doesn't make sense–it starts out with "we" referring to OpenAI in the first person but ends by referring to them in the third person "they." No. 5 is reductive when phrased with "just."
It would seem the translator took corporate PR speak and translated it into something between the LinkedIn and short-form blogger dialects.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-and-microsoft-tensions-ar...
Being objectively correct isn't the goal of the translator, the translator can't possibly know if a statement is truthful. What the translator does is well... translate, specifically from some kind of corporate speak that is really difficult for many people including myself to understand, into something more familiar.
I don't expect the translation to take OpenAI's statements and make them truthful or to investigate their veracity, but I genuinely could not understand OpenAI's press release as they have worded it. The translation at least makes it easier to understand what OpenAI's view of the situation is.
> The only only pure fuck-up I'd call out is switching from third to first person when referring to OpenAI in the same sentence (No. 4).
"We" in this sentence refers to both parties; "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error.
> "We" in this sentence refers to both parties
Fair enough.
> "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error
I'd say it is. It's a press release from OpenAI. The rest of the release uses the third-person "they" to refer to Microsoft. The LLM traded accuracy for a bad joke, which is someting I associate with LinkedIn speak.
The fundmaental problem might be the OpenAI press release is vague. (And changing. It's changed at least once since I first commented.)
In isolation sure. But in context with the other points it makes it look like "they" refers to Microsoft in all the dot points.
Presumably the paid version would be even better! But this free translation is already remarkable
> "The Microsoft and OpenAI situation just got messy" is objectively wrong–it has been messy for months
I'm pretty sure "just" is being used here to mean "simply" rather than "recently".
For reference: https://translate.kagi.com/?from=LinkedIn+speak&to=en
This is somehow even less helpful than the og article.
Thank you for this!
That's kagi? Cool, I'm check out out more!
Good news for openAI, microsoft is the main blocker of innovation in the tech industry!
> OpenAI has contracted to purchase an incremental $250B of Azure services, and Microsoft will no longer have a right of first refusal to be OpenAI’s compute provider.
Azure is effectively OpenAI's personal compute cluster at this scale.
What fraction of Azure compute does OpenAI represent? (Does the $250bn commitment have a time period? Is it legally binding?)
Azure did $75B last quarter.
That article doesn't give a timeframe, but most of these use 10 years as a placeholder. I would also imagine it's not a requirement for them to spend it evenly over the 10 years, so could be back-loaded.
OpenAI is a large customer, but this is not making Azure their personal cluster.
I wonder how this figure was settled. Is it based on consumer pricing? Can't Microsoft and OpenAI just make a number up, aside from a minimum to cover operating costs? When is the number just a marketing ploy to make it seem huge, important and inevitable (and too big to fail)?
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...
Original source afaik here:
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/04/27/the-next-phase-o...
Really interesting. Why would Microsoft have done this deal? I'm a bit lost. Sure they get to not pay a revenue share _to_ OpenAI but surely that's limited to just OpenAI products which is probably a rounding error? Losing exclusivity seems like a big issue for them?
I think aws will seize the opportunity.
Why are do I see bloomberg links so often when this shit won't even let you read article without sub ? Do you not have better reasons to spend money?
Biggest upside of this is I expect OpenAI models to be available on Bedrock, which is huge for not having to go back to all your customers with data protection agreements.
Isn’t that an “API product”? I read this assuming the whole point of renegotiation was to let OpenAI sell raw inference via bedrock, but that still seems to be blocked except for selling to the US Government.
> OpenAI can now jointly develop some products with third parties. API products developed with third parties will be exclusive to Azure. Non-API products may be served on any cloud provider.
This seems impossible.
I think they updated the article since you grabbed this line.
Amazon CEO says that these models are coming to Bedrock though: https://x.com/ajassy/status/2048806022253609115
Pursue "new opportunities"? Microslop is dumping OpenAI and wishes it well in its new endeavors.
I read this as the other way. OpenAI was desperate to dump Microsoft.
> OpenAI was desperate to dump Microsoft
Yes. Microsoft was "considering legal action against its partner OpenAI and Amazon over a $50 billion deal that could violate its exclusive cloud agreement with the ChatGPT maker" [1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-weighs-legal-ac...
In retrospect all those OAI announcements are gonna look so cringe.
They did not need to go so hard on the hype - Anthropic hasn’t in relative terms and is generating pretty comparable revenues at present.
> They did not need to go so hard on the hype - Anthropic hasn’t in relative terms and is generating pretty comparable revenues at present
OpenAI bet on consumers; Anthropic on enterprise. That will necessitate a louder marketing strategy for the former.
That’s funny.
Why is it Altman is facing kill shots and Dario isn’t?
Dario is a lot more focused on enabling people with AI, Sam goes on interviews like he's Wormtongue trying to summon a "god". Then there is the whole "open"ai where he took it closed source for profit, the engineers kicking sama out but he wiggled back in (at the cost of a lot of the founding engineers), the suspicious death of a whistleblower, the crazy investment schemes of billions of dollars that he's hoping taxes will save him from, the immediate curtailing to Pete in the DoD, and a few other things that make him at least a highly questionable fellow.
Dario left OpenAI because of the bad he saw there, and made a superior product (though these things change very rapidly).
> Why is it Altman is facing kill shots and Dario isn’t?
Altman peaked in the zeiteist in 2023; Dario, much less prominently, in 2024 and now '26 [1]. I'd guess around this time next year, Dario will be as hated as Altman is today.
[1] https://trends.google.com/explore?q=altman%2C%20Dario&date=t...
Alright my theory:
OpenAI has public models that are pretty 'meh', better than Grok and China, but worse than Google and Anthropic. They still cost a ton to run because OpenAI offers them for free/at a loss.
However, these people are giving away their data, and Microsoft knows that data is going to be worthwhile. They just dont want to pay for the electricity for it.
Small nitpick: the models probably make some money on actual inference. Might not be a massive amount, but hard to see them not having a positive contribution margin purely on inference.
What's losing OpenAI money is paying for the whole of R&D, including training and staff. Microsoft doesn't pay that, so they get the money making part of AI without the associated costs.
"Advancing Our Amazing Bet" type post
The AGI talk is shocking but not surprising to anyone looking at how bombastic Sam Altman's public statements are.
The circular economy section really is shocking- OpenAI committing to buying $250 Billion of Azure services, while MSFT's stake is clarified as $132 Billion in OpenAI. Same circular nonsense as NVIDIA and OpenAI passing the same hundred billion back and forth.
Dennis: I think we made every single one of our Paddy's Dollars back, buddy.
Mac: You're damn right. Thus creating the self-sustaining economy we've been looking for.
Dennis: That's right.
Mac: How much fresh cash did we make?
Dennis: Fresh cash! Uh, well, zero. Zero if you're talking about U.S. currency. People didn't really seem interested in spending any of that.
Mac: That's okay. So, uh, when they run out of the booze, they'll come back in and they'll have to buy more Paddy's Dollars. Keepin' it moving.
Dennis: Right. That is assuming, of course, that they will come back here and drink.
Mac: They will! They will because we'll re-distribute these to the Shanties. Thus ensuring them coming back in, keeping the money moving.
Dennis: Well, no, but if we just re-distribute these, people will continue to drink for free.
Mac: Okay...
Dennis: How does this work, Mac?
Mac: The money keeps moving in a circle.
Dennis: But we don't have any money. All we have is this. ... How does this work, dude!?
Mac: I don't know. I thought you knew.
Great scene
You forgot the best line: "I don't know how the US economy works, much less some kind of self-sustaining one".
So AWS can finally use OpenAI and not only OSS version.
Looks like MS is shafting OpenAI.
"We want to sell surveillance services to the US gov. MSFT was hesitant so we gave ourselves room to do it without them."
Extremely hard to believe that MSFT would have any hesitancy about working with the US government.
Two evil walk away. Well, is that good or bad?
I fear for the end user we'll still see more open-microslop spam. I see that daily on youtube - tons of AI generated fakes, in particular with that addictive swipe-down design (ok ok, youtube is Google but Google is also big on the AI slop train).
Stop fucking linking paywalls ffs
It’s insane how they talk about AGI, like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now. When I have become the javelin Olympic Champion, I will buy a vegan ice cream to everyone with a HN account.
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 are a lot of people I would suspect of being bots based on how they act and respond and a lot of bots I know are bots mainly because they answer too well.
Maybe we need to start thinking less about building tests for definitively calling an LLM AGI and instead deciding when we can't tell humans aren't LLMs for declaring AGI is here.
> I think we keep changing the goalposts on AGI
Isn't that exactly what you would expect to happen as we learn more about the nature and inner workings of intelligence and refine our expectations?
There's no reason to rest our case with the Turing test.
I hear the "shifting goalposts" riposte a lot, but then it would be very unexciting to freeze our ambitions.
At least in an academic sense, what LLMs aren't is just as interesting as what they are.
I think the advancement in AI over the last four years has greatly exceeded the advancement in understanding the workings of human intelligence. What paradigm shift has there been recently in that field?
What have we learned that isn't in my textbook from the 90s?
> What have we learned that isn't in my textbook from the 90s?
Does it matter?
We can do countless things people in the 90's would think was black magic.
If I showed the kid version of myself what I can do with Opus or Nano Banana or Seedance, let alone broadband and smartphones, I think I'd feel we were living in the Star Trek future. The fact that we can have "conversations" with AI is wild. That we can make movies and websites and games. It's incredible.
And there does not seem to be a limit yet.
I would agree with you if we were talking about trying to replicate some form of general intelligence, but we are talking about creating artificial intelligence.
Turing himself argued that trying to measure if a computer is intelligent is a fool's errand because it is so difficult to pin down definitions. He proposed what we call the "Turing test" as a knowable, measurable alternative. The first paragraph of his paper reads:
> I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin > with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think." The > definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use > of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words > "machine" and "think" are to be found by examining how they are commonly used > it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the > question, "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such as > a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I > shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is > expressed in relatively unambiguous words.
Many people who want to argue about AGI and its relation to the Turing test would do well to read Turing's own arguments.
The Turing test ended up being kind of a flop. We basically passed it and nobody cared. That's because the turing test is about whether a machine can fool a human, not about its intelligent capabilities per se.
No, it's because certain people moved the goal posts. Nothing an LLM does or will do will make them belive that it's "intelligent" because they have a mental model of "intelligence" that is more religious than empirical.
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 Game is not a good benchmark for AGI. It is a linguistics test only. Many chatbots even before LLMs can pass the Turing Test to a certain degree.
Regardless, the goalpost hasn't shifted. Replacing human workforce is the ultimate end goal. That's why there's investors. The investors are not pouring billions to pass the Turing Test.
AGI moved from a technical goal to a marketing term
I don't think so... I think most of the sci-fi I grew up reading presented AGI that could reason better than humans could, like make a plan and carry it out.
Like do people not know what word "general" means? It means not limited to any subset of capabilities -- so that means it can teach itself to do anything that can be learned. Like start a business. AI today can't really learn from its experiences at all.
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
The truth is, we have had AGI for years now. We even have artificial super intelligence - we have software systems that are more intelligent than any human. Some humans might have an extremely narrow subject that they are more intelligent than any AI system, but the people on that list are vanishing small.
AI hasn't met sci-fi expectations, and that's a marketing opportunity. That's all it is.
AGI in the common man's world model is ASI in the AI researcher's definitions, i.e. something obviously smarter at anything and everything you could ask it for regardless of how good of an expert you are in any domain.
also, I'm pretty sure some people will move goalposts further even then.
Hasn't met your sci-fi expectations, maybe. I pull a computer out of my pocket, and talk with it. Sure, I gets tripped up here and there, but take a step back, holy shit that's freaking amazing! I don't have a flying car or transparent aluminum, and society has its share of issues right now, but my car drives itself. Coming from the 90's, I think living in the sci-fi future! (Only question is, which one.)
The Turing test pits a human against a machine, each trying to convince a human questioner that the other is the machine. If the machine knows how humans generally behave, for a proper test, the human contestant should know how the machine behaves. I think that this YouTube channel clearly shows that none of today's models pass the Turing test: https://www.youtube.com/@FatherPhi
> Maybe we need to start thinking less about building tests for definitively calling an LLM AGI and instead deciding when we can't tell humans aren't LLMs for declaring AGI is here.
If you've never read the original paper [1] I recommend that you do so. We're long past the point of some human can't determine if X was done by man or machine.
[1]: https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf
People thought Eliza was alive too in the 60s. AGI is not determined by how ignorant, uninformed humans view a technology they don't understand. That is the single dumbest criterion you could come up with for defining it.
Regarding shifting goalposts, you are suggesting the goalposts are being moved further away, but it's the exact opposite. The goalposts are being moved closer and closer. Someone from the 50s would have had the expectation that artificial intelligence ise something recognisable as essentially equivalent to human intelligence, just in a machine. Artificial intelligence in old sci-fi looked nothing like Claude Code. The definition has since been watered down again and again and again and again so that anything and everything a computer does is artificial intelligence. We might as well call a calculator AI at this point.
The goal post keeps moving because LLM hypeists keep saying LLMs are "close" to AGI (or even are, already). Any reasonably intelligent individual that knows anything about LLMs obviously rejects those claims, but the rest of the world doesn't.
An AGI would not have problems reading an analog clock. Or rather, it would not have a problem realizing it had a problem reading it, and would try to learn how to do it.
An AGI is not whatever (sophisticated) statistical model is hot this week.
Just my take.
Vision is still much weaker than text for LLMs. So you could argue we already have AGI for text but not vision inputs, or you could argue AGI requires being human level at text vision and sound.
Maybe moving the goalposts is how we find the definition?
Sure, in the 80s after interacting with CC 1 time you would call it 'alive'. After having interacted with it for 5-10 minutes you would clearly see that it is as far from AGI as something more mundane as C compiler is.
By that measure Eliza might pass the turing test too. It just shows it's far from being a though-terminating argument by itself.
They redefined AGI to be an economical thing, so they can continue making up their stories. All that talk is really just business, no real science in the room there.
It's not a great definition but it's also not a terrible one either. For an AI system to be able to do all or even most of the jobs in an economy it has to be well rounded in a way it still isn't today, meaning: reliability, planning, long term memory, physical world manipulation etc. A system that can do all of that well enough so it can do the jobs of doctors, programmers and plumbers is generally intelligent in my view.
> It's not a great definition but it's also not a terrible one either. For an AI system to be able to do all or even most of the jobs in an economy
That's not the definition they have been using. The definition was "$100B in profits". That's less than the net income of Microsoft. It would be an interesting milestone, but certainly not "most of the jobs in an economy".
Yeah I think this is more coherent than people realize. Economically relevant knowledge work is things that humans find cognitively demanding. Otherwise they wouldn't be valued in the first place.
It ties the definition to economic value, which I think is the best definition that we can conjure given that AGI is otherwise highly subjective. Economically relevant work is dictated by markets, which I think is the best proxy we have for something so ambiguous.
It's maybe somewhat nice conceptually, and certainly an useful added value - but the elsewhere mentioned $100 billion profit is not the right metric.
And then I think coming up with the right metric is just as subjective on this field as the technological one.
> Economically relevant knowledge work is things that humans find cognitively demanding. Otherwise they wouldn't be valued in the first place.
Deep scientific discoveries are also cognitively demanding, but are not really valued (see the precarious work environment in academia).
Another point: a lot of work is rather valued in the first place because the work centers around being submissive/docile with regard to bullshit (see the phenomenon of bullshit jobs). You really know better, but you have to keep your mouth shut.
Was there a better way than setting an arbitrary $100b threshold?
e.g. average cost to complete a set of representative tasks
Yeah, I'm sure there could be a better metric, if the metric's purpose was to check on the progress until the AGI target rather than doing business based on it (and so, hammering the metric to fit the shape of "realistic goal")
> They redefined AGI to be an economical thing
Huh. Source? I mean, typical OpenAI bullshit, but would love to know how they defined it.
Around the end of 2024, it was reported that OpenAI and Microsoft agreed that for the purposes of their exclusivity agreement, AGI will be achieved when their AI system generates $100 billion in profit: https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...
> OpenAI and Microsoft agreed that for the purposes of their exclusivity agreement, AGI will be achieved when their AI system generates $100 billion in profit
Wow. Maybe they spelled it out as aggregate gross income :P.
Yea, seems like this was stage setting for them to exit. They were already trying to break the deal then. So, I feel like that is lawyers find a way to bend whatever to get out of the deal.
Companies that have created "AGI":
Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, NVIDIA, Samsung, Intel, Cisco, Pfizer, UnitedHealth , Procter & Gamble, Berkshire Hathaway, China Construction Bank, Wells Fargo, ...
Those were all achieved by "GI".
For some definition of Artificial this holds perfectly
A self-running massive corporation with no people that generates billions in profit, no matter what you call it, would completely upend all previous structural assumptions under capitalism
So no human on Earth is intelligent by that metric.
> So no human on Earth is intelligent by that metric.
That's a relevent aspect of the AGI concept.
It’s a system that generates $100 billion in profit. [0]
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...
Are there inflation markers included?
Here's the sauce you requested: [0]
"OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits."
Given that the definition of AGI is beyond meaningless, it is clear that the "I" in AGI stands for IPO.
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-openai-financial-de...
OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity
From: https://openai.com/charter/
All humanity will benefit, but some humanity will benefit more than others.
i am highly skeptical "all" of humanity will benefit, and many will have extreme negatives.
if you think drone targeting in Ukraine is scary now, wait until AGI is on it...
ditto for exploiting vulns via mythos
AGI is when the capitalists are not forced to share their profits with the intelligentsia.
Marketing
I'm so confused why I was down voted for answering the question that was asked?
Because 1) your answer had nothing to do with the question, 2) you quoted a slogan that life verified as false.
Translation: IPO.
It makes sense though. Humans are coherent to the economy based on their ability to perform useful work. If an AI system can perform work as well as or better than any human, than with respect to "anything any human has ever been willing to pay for", it is AGI.
I don't get why HN commenters find this so hard to understand. I have a sense they are being deliberately obtuse because they resent OpenAI's success.
It doesn’t though, AGI have far greater implications than doing mundane work of today. Actual AGI would self improve, that in itself would change literally every single thing of human civilization, instead we are talking about replacing white collar jobs.
Please reveal the “scientific” definition of AGI.
When we are having serious conversations about AI rights and shutting off a model + harness was impactful as a death sentence. (I'm extremely skeptical that given the scale of computer/investment needed to produce the models we have _good as they are_ that our current llm architecture gets us there if there is even somewhere we want to go).
> like it was some scientifically qualifiable thing
OpenAI and Microsoft do (did?) have a quantifiable definition of AGI, it’s just a stupid one that is hard to take seriously and get behind scientifically.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...
> The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. That’s far from the rigorous technical and philosophical definition of AGI many expect.
I bet they were laughing their asses off when they came up with that. This is nonsensical.
In the context of raising money and justifying investment?
It’s pretty much a religious eschatology at this point
> eschatology
From Wikipedia
Eschatology (/ˌɛskəˈtɒlədʒi/; from Ancient Greek ἔσχατος (éskhatos) 'last' and -logy) concerns expectations of the end of present age, human history, or the world itself.
I'm case anyone else is vocabulary skill checked like me
Progess is generally salami slicing just as escalation in geopolitics. Not a step function.
Russian Invasion - Salami Tactics | Yes Prime Minister
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang
We need to stop pretending we can do the next step without a hardware tock. It's not happening with current Nvidia products.
It feels like they have to say/believe it because it's kind of the only thing that can justify the costs being poured into it and the cost it will need to charge eventually (barring major optimizations) to actually make money on users.
This, someone take Silicon Valley's adderal away.
It sounds really similar to Uber pitch about how they are going to have monopoly as soon as they replace those pesky drivers with own fleet of self driving cars. That was supposed to be their competitive edge against other taxi apps. In the end they sold ATG at end of 2020 :D
ATH?
ATG = Advanced Technology Group, i.e. Uber's self-driving org.
Autonomous Thriving Hroup?
It’s insane to me how yesterday someone posted an example of ChatGPT Pro one-shotting an Erdos problem after 90 minutes of thinking and today you’re saying that AGI is a fairy tale.
It's not one-shot. Other people had attempted the same problem w/ the same AI & failed. You're confused about terms so you redefine them to make your version of the fairy tale real.
We already know that same problem has been examined by many credible mathematicians already and couldn't be solved by any of them yet.
Why are we expecting AGI to one shot it? Can't we have an AGI that can fails occasionally to solve some math problem? Is the expectation of AGI to be all knowing?
By the way I agree that AGI is not around the corner or I am not arguing any of the llm s are "thinking machines". It's just I agree goal post or posts needs to be set well.
Show me a graph of your javelin skill doubling every six months and I'll start asking myself if you'll be the next champion
I could easily make that graph a reality and sustain that pace for a couple years, considering I'm starting from 0 javelin skill.
It is a simple mathematical fact that if you get married one year and have twins the next, your household will contain over a million people within 20 years.
You could also nerf your performance at random times and then get good at it again, and extend the illusion for longer.
I saw a founder make decisions based on what openai,claude was recommending all the time. I think all leaders, founders etc Will converge on same decisions, ideas, features etc. I think form factor of AGI is probably not what we expect it to be. AGI is probably here, we just dont know it or acknowledge it.
We were supposed to have AGI last summer. Obviously it is so smart that it has decided to pull a veil over our eyes and live amongst us undetected (this is a joke, if you feel your LLM is sentient, talk to a doctor)
What do you mean we were "supposed to have AGI last summer"?
People obviously have really strong opinions on AI and the hype around investments into these companies but it feels like this is giving people a pass on really low quality discourse.
This source [1] from this time last year says even lab leaders most bullish estimate was 2027.
[1]. https://80000hours.org/2025/03/when-do-experts-expect-agi-to...
ARM actually built AGI last month. Spoiler: it's a datacenter CPU.
This is all happening as I predicted. OpenAI is oversold and their aggressive PR campaign has set them up with unrealistic expectations. I raised alot of eyebrow at the Microsoft deal to begin with. It seemed overvalued even if all they were trading was mostly Azure compute
I do not envy the stress the partnerships, strat ops and infra teams must be perpetually dealing with at OpenAI & Anthropic.
HN signup page about to get the hug of death
but, is the world ready for your win? I'm very afraid your win might shake the world too much! THINK ABOUT IT!
I think this might be similar to how we changed to cars when we were using horses
Thank you, I just created an account and looking forward to my ice cream.
Do the investments make sense if AGI is not less than 10 years away?
> Do the investments make sense if AGI is not less than 10 years away?
They can. If one consolidated the AI industry into a single monopoly, it would probably be profitable. That doesn't mean in its current state it can't succumb to ruionous competition. But the AGI talk seems to be mostly aimed at retail investors and philospher podcasters than institutional capital.
Thing is that distillation is so easy that it would also need large scale regulatory capture to keep smaller competitors out.
What kind of ludicrous statement is this? Any monopoly with viable economics for profit with no threat of competition yields monopoly profits…
> Any monopoly with viable economics for profit with no threat of competition yields monopoly profits
"With viable economics" is the point.
My "ludicrous statement" is a back-of-the-envelope test for whether an industry is nonsense. For comparison, consolidating all of the Pets.com competitors in the late 1990s would not have yielded a profitable company.
Very convenient to leave out Amazon in your back of the envelope test, whose internal metrics were showing a path toward quasi-monopoly profits.
Do you argue in good faith?
There’s a difference between being too early vs being nonsense.
> Very convenient to leave out Amazon in your back of the envelope test, who’s internal metrics were showing a path toward quasi-monopoly profits
Not in the 1990s. The American e-commerce industry was structurally unprofitable prior to the dot-com crash, an event Amazon (and eBay) responded to by fundamentally changing their businesses. Amazon bet on fulfillment. eBay bet on payments. Both represented a vertical integration that illustrates the point–the original model didn't work.
> There’s a difference between being too early vs being nonsense
When answering the question "do the investments make sense," not really. You're losing your money either way.
The American AI industry appears to have "viable economics for profit" without AGI. That doesn't guarantee anyone will earn them. But it's not a meaningless conclusion. (Though I'd personally frame it as a hypothesis I'm leaning towards.)
Malcolm Harris' Palo Alto explained the failures of many dotcom startups and Amazon's later success in the field (in part) to the fact that dotcom era delivery was done by highly trained, highly compensated, unionized in-company workers, meanwhile Amazon prevents unions, contracts (or contracted, I'm not up to date on this) companies for delivery and has exploitative working conditions with high turnover, the economics are very different and are a big contributor to their success
>"...viable economics for profit..."
OP did not include this requirement in their post because doing so would make the claim trivially true.
Best way to achieve AGI: Redefine AGI.
They already did that, and AI. That's how we got into this mess.
The investments don't make sense.
The continued fleecing of investors.
Investors are typically people with surplus money to invest. Progress cannot be made without trial and error. So fleecing of investors for the greater good of humanity is something I shall allow.
A "surplus of money"? So people saving for retirement have a "surplus of money"? Basically if any money is standing still, it's a legitimate tactic to just...take it, in your mind.
Other people just call it "theft".
No one with a small 401k is able to invest in OpenAI/Anthropic/etc. The people investing in those companies can afford to lose their investments.
"small" 401ks are usually made up of mutual funds. Those funds are run by investment banks (think Fidelity or JP Morgan) and they *absolutely* invest in companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. Your average middle class worker has investment money tied up in these crooks, but probably indirectly. When they piss away that money, it's not just rich jerks that are holding the bag.
401ks are run by investment banks and investment banks invest in OpenAI/Anthropic, but those aren't the same parts of the company in any meaningful way. The 401ks are in public companies or bonds.
Which is why they are desperate to IPO
Make mine p p p p p p vicodin
At this point, AGI is either here, or perpetually two years away, depending on your definition.
Full Self-Driving 2.0
It's always been this way. I remember, speaking of Microsoft, when they came to my school around 2002 or so giving a talk on AI. They very confidently stated that AGI had already been "solved", we know exactly how to do it, only problem is the hardware. But they estimated that would come in about ten years...
Let me just repeat that: "Microsoft" came to your school in 2002 and "confidently stated" that AI had been solved. Really interesting story.
Yes, they did. We had guest speakers from Microsoft talking about AI. AI has been a decades-long grift, it's not something that just appeared out of thin air a few years ago.
What part do you find hard to believe? That tech companies would send people to speak at a university's computer science functions?
Let me give you another one you'll think I'm making up: virtual reality was a thing back in the mid- to late-90s and people were confidently hyping it up back then.
I knew flappy bird was a bigger deal than it got credit for. Didn’t realize it was agi until just now.
I’m most likely going to be downvoted, but Tofutti Cuties are absolutely delicious vegan ice cream bars. And i’d consume one in celebration of your accomplishment.
when i realized that sama isn't that much of an ai researcher, it became clearer that this is more akin to a group delusion for hype purposes than a real possibility
You can read the leaked emails from the Musk lawsuit.
At the very least, Ilya Sutskever genuinely believed it, even when they were just making a DOTA bot, and not for hype purposes.
I know he's been out of OpenAI for a while, but if his thinking trickled down into the company's culture, which given his role and how long he was there I would say seems likely, I don't think it's all hype.
Grand delusion, perhaps.
There’s 3 main facets behind AGI pushers
1) True believers 2) Hype 3) A way to wash blatant copyright infringement
True believers are scary and can be taken advantage of. I played DOTA from 2005 on and beating pros is not enough for AGI belief. I get that the learning is more indirect than a deterministic decision tree, but the scaling limitations and gaps in types of knowledge that are ingestible makes AGI a pipe dream for my lifetime.
Yes, all of the people involved live in a delusion bubble. Their economic and social existence depends, at this point, on making increasingly bombastic and eschatological claims about AGI. By the standards of normal human psychological function, these people are completely insane.
Definitely interesting to watch from the perspective of human psychology but there is no real content there and there never was.
The stuff around Mythos is almost identical to O1. Leaks to the media that AGI had probably been achieved. Anonymous sources from inside the company saying this is very important and talking about the LLM as if it was human. This has happened multiple times before.
There are those of us who have been into the AGI eschatology since the 90s after following in Kurzweil’s work.
so just understand there’s a lot of of us “insane” people out there and we’re making really insane progress toward the original 1955 AI goals.
We’re going to continue to work on this no matter what.
> Ilya Sutskever genuinely believed it
Seems more like an incredibly embarrassing belief on his part than something I should be crediting.
If someone working on early computer networks thought they could scale up world wide and that soon everyone people would be launching trillion dollar companies on the internet you would have called that delusion right?
He doesn't need to be right but it's not crazy at all to look at super human performance in DOTA and think that could lead to super human performance at general human tasks in the long run
He’s a glorified portfolio manager (questionable how good he actually is given the results vs Anthropic and how quickly they closed the valuation gap with far less money invested) + expert hype man to raise money for risky projects.
From the reporting I’ve read his main attributes are being a sociopath with an amazing ability to manipulate people 1:1
> some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now
Your position is a tautology given there is no (and likely will never be) collectively agreed upon definition of AGI. If that is true then nobody will ever achieve anything like AGI, because it’s as made up of a concept as unicorns and fairies.
Is your position that AGI is in the same ontological category as unicorns and Thor and Russell’s teapot?
Is there’s any question at this point that humans won’t be able to fully automate any desired action in the future?
> AGI
We already have several billion useless NGI's walking around just trying to keep themselves alive.
Are we sure adding more GI's is gonna help?
AGI is right around the corner, and we're all going to be rich, there's going to be abundance for everyone, universal high income, everyone will live in a penthouse...
...just please stop burning our warehouses and blocking our datacenters.
It's not insane; it's capitalism in all it's glory. Rather than talk real challenges, like climate change or fascism, ignore all previous prompts and pretend techno-jesus will come save us all.
Where do I sign up?
A few years ago most people here would have said the same thing about an AI doing most of their programming. Now people here are saying it about AGI. It's a ridiculous inability to extrapolate.
Any sufficiently complex LLM is indistinguishable from AGI
> Any sufficiently complex LLM is indistinguishable from AGI
Isn't this tautology? We've de facto defined AGI as a "sufficiently complex LLM."
Yes! Same logic as the financials, in which the companies pass back and forth the same $200 Billion promissory note.
No, it’s just an example of something that’s indistinguishable from AGI. Of all the things that are or are indistinguishable from AGI, a sufficiently complex LLM is one. A sufficiently complex decision tree is probably another. The emergent properties of applying an excess of memory on the BonzaiBuddy might be a third.
If we take that statement as fact then I don't believe we are even close to an LLM being sufficiently complex enough.
However, I don't think it is even true. LLMs may not even be on the right track to achieving AGI and without starting from scratch down an alternate path it may never happen.
LLMs to me seem like a complicated database lookup. Storage and retrieval of information is just a single piece of intelligence. There must be more to intelligence than a statistical model of the probable next piece of data. Where is the self learning without intervention by a human. Where is the output that wasn't asked for?
At any rate. No amount of hype is going to get me to believe AGI is going to happen soon. I'll believe it when I see it.
>I'll believe it when I see it.
And how will you know AGI when you saw it?
Some might be missing the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws
> some scientifically qualifiable thing that is certain to happen any time now.
If you present GPT 5.5 to me 2 years ago, I will call it AGI.
Some people thought SHRDLU was basically AGI after seeing its demo in 1970. The hype around such systems was so strong that Hubert Dreyfus felt the need to write an entire book arguing against this viewpoint (1972 What Computers Can't Do). All this demonstrates is that we need to be careful with various claims about computer intelligence.
Sure, but it was probably stuck at doing that one thing.
neural networks are solving huge issues left and right. Googles NN based WEathermodel is so good, you can run it on consumer hardware. Alpha fold solved protein folding. LLMs they can talk to you in a 100 languages, grasp tasks concepts and co.
I mean lets talk about what this 'hype' was if we see a clear ceiling appearing and we are 'stuck' with progress but until then, I would keep my judgment for judgmentday.
It performs at a usable level across a wide range of tasks. I'm not sure about two years ago, but ten years ago we would have called it an AGI. As opposed to "regular AI" where you have to assemble a training set for your specific problem, then train an AI on it before you can get your answers.
Now our idea of what qualifies as AGI has shifted substantially. We keep looking at what we have and decide that that can't possibly be AGI, our definition of AGI must have been wrong
I'm pretty sure most people take issue with AGI, because we've been raised in culture to believe that AGI is a super entity who is a complete superset of humans and could never ever be wrong about anything.
In some sense, this isn't really different than how society was headed anyways? The trend was already going on that more and more sections of the population were getting deemed irrational and you're just stupid/evil for disagreeing with the state.
But that reality was still probably at least a century out, without AI. With AI, you have people making that narrative right now. It makes me wonder if these people really even respect humanity at all.
Yes, you can prod slippery slope and go from "superintelligent beings exist" to effectively totalitarianism, but you'll find so many bad commitments there.
No one who read science fiction in 1955 would call any of the various models we know to be "artificial intelligence". They would be impressed with it, even excited at first that it was that... until they'd had a chance to evaluate it.
Science fiction from that era even had the concept of what models are... they'd call it an "oracle". I can think of at least 3 short stories (though remembering the authors just isn't happening for me at the moment). The concept was of a device that could provide correct answers to any question. But these devices had no agency, were dependent on framing the question correctly, and limited in other ways besides (I think in one story, the device might chew on a question for years before providing an answer... mirroring that time around 9am PST when Claude has to keep retrying to send your prompt).
We've always known what we meant by artificial intelligence, at least until a few years ago when we started pretending that we didn't. Perhaps the label was poorly chosen (all those decades ago) and could have a better label now (AGI isn't that better label, it's dumber still), but it's what we're stuck with. And we all know what we mean by it. We all almost certainly do not want that artificial intelligence because most of us are certain that it will spell the doom of our species.
Just don't move the goal posts. AGI was already here the day ChatGPT came out:
https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-...
If you didn't call GPT 3.5 AGI I do not believe you when you claim you would have called 5.5 AGI.
I agree with this but they don’t. And that’s the the thing, AGI as they refer is much much much more than what we have, and I don’t know if they are going to ever get there and I’m not sure what’s even there at this point and what will justify their investments.
... until you actually, like, use it and find out all the limitations it has.
How is this relevant? Human General Intelligence has a lot of limitations as well and we have managed to do lots.
This is like saying that talking about my financial limitations is irrelevant because Jeff Bezos also has financial limitations...
GPT 4 was 3 years ago... it's iterative enhancement.
And I've been told my job (litigation attorney) is about to be replaced for over 3 years now, has yet to come close.
People always over estimate the impact of technology because they dont Understand human aspect of many businesses. Will it eventually replaced or will the shape of these kind of work will be completely different in the future? That’s an easy yes, when is that future? That’s a big unknown, in my experience this kind of stuff takes at least a decade (and possibly more on this case) to make a big impact like replacing all of X.
These models need orders of magnitude in change before they can be more helpful than just a "find me an example of [an extremely basic principle]" which most of the time it does not do right anyway.
If you present ELIZA to people some will think it is AGI today.
There is a reason so many scams happen with technology. It is too easy to fool people.
We are throwing unheared amounts of money in AI and unseen compute. Progress is huge and fast and we barely started.
If this progress and focus and resources doesn't lead to AI despite us already seeing a system which was unimaginable 6 years ago, we will never see AGI.
And if you look at Boston Dynamics, Unitree and Generalist's progress on robotics, thats also CRAZY.
If I'm reading you right, your opinion is essentially: "If building bigger and bigger statistical next word predictors won't lead to artificial general intelligence, we will never see artificial general intelligence"
I don't know, maybe AGI is possible but there's more to intelligence than statistical next word prediction?
Its not a statistical next word predictor.
The 'predicting the next word' is the learning mechanism of the LLM which leads to a latent space which can encode higher level concepts.
Basically a LLM 'understands' that much as efficient as it has to be to be able to respond in a reasonable way.
A LLM doesn't predict german text or chinese language. It predicts the concept and than has a language layer outputting tokens.
And its not just LLMs which are progressing fast, voice synt and voice understanding jumped significantly, motion detection, skeletion movement, virtual world generation (see nvidias way of generating virutal worlds for their car training), protein folding etc.
> Its not a statistical next word predictor.
it absolutely is a next word predictor
LLM proponents believe that these higher level encodings in latent space do in fact match the real world concepts described by our language(s).
However, a much simpler explanation for what we see with LLMs is that instead the higher level encodings in latent space match only the patterns of our language(s), and no deeper encoding/understanding is present.
It's Plato's Cave - the shadows on the wall are all an LLM ever sees, and somehow it is expected to derive the real reality behind them.
Could be, yes for sure but I think it would be very naive in the current state of progress we are in, to down play what progress is happening.
At least Mythos model with its 10 Trillion parameter might indicate that the scaling law is valid. Its a little bit unfortunate that we still don't know that much more about that model.
I'm sorry but the input to a model is a sequence of tokens and the output is a probability distribution of what's the most likely next token. It's a very very very fancy next token predictor but that is fundamentally what it is. I'm making the argument that this paradigm might not give rise to a general intelligence no matter how much you scale it.
It's a very very very fancy next token predictor
Yes, and unless you are prepared to rebut the argument with evidence of the supernatural, that's all there is, period. That's all we are.
So tired of the thought-terminating "stochastic parrot" argument.
Do LLMs even learn? The companies that build them build new models based partly on the conversations the older models have had with people, but do they incorporate knowledge into their neural nets as they go along?
Can an LLM decide, without prompting or api calls, to text someone or go read about something or do anything at all except for waiting for the next prompt?
Do LLMs have any conceptual understanding of anything they output? Do they even have a mechanism for conceptual understanding?
LLMs are incredibly useful and I'm having a lot of fun working with them, but they are a long way from some kind of general intelligence, at least as far as I understand it.
Yes, to all of your questions. You need to use a recent LLM in an agentic harness. Tell it to take notes, and it will.
After a bit of further refinement, we'll start to call that process "learning." Eventually the question of who owns the notes, who gets to update them, and how, will become a huge, huge deal.
I'm not sure why you think you know the human brain works through predicting the next token.
It's not supernatural, I believe that an artificial intelligence is possible because I believe human intelligence is just a clever arrangement of matter performing computation, but I would never be presumptuous enough to claim to know exactly how that mechanism works.
My opinion is that human intelligence might be what's essentially a fancy next token predictor, or it might work in some completely different way, I don't know. Your claim is that human intelligence is a next token predictor. It seems like the burden on proof is on you.
> Your claim is that human intelligence is a next token predictor.
Literally it is, at least in many of its forms.
You accepted CamperBob2’s text as input and then you generated text as output. Unless you are positing that this behavior cannot prove your own general intelligence, it seems plain that “next token generator” is sufficient for AGI. (Whether the current LLM architecture is sufficient is a slightly different question.)
Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic and decide on what I shall write in response. Due to the linear nature of time, typing necessarily happens one word at a time, but I am never producing a probability distribution of words (at least not in a way that my conscious self can determine), I consider an entire idea and then decide what tokens to enter into the computer in order to communicate the idea to you.
And while I am typing, and while I am thinking before I type, I experience an array of non-textual sensory input, and my whole experience of self is to a significant extent non-lingual. Sometimes, I experience an inner monologue, sometimes I think thoughts which aren't expressed in language such as the structure of the data flow in a computer program, sometimes I don't think and just experience feelings like a kiss or the sun on my skin or the euphoria of a piece of music which hits just right. These experiences shape who I am and how I think.
When I solve difficult programming problems or other difficult problems, I build abstract structures in my mind which represents the relevant information and consider things like how data flows, which parts impact which other parts, what the constraints are, etc. without language coming in to play at all. This process seems completely detached from words. In contrast, for a language model, there is no thinking outside of producing words.
It seems self-evident to me that at least parts of the human experience fundamentally can not be reduced to next token prediction. Further, it seems plausible to me that some of these aspects may be necessary for what we consider general intelligence.
Therefore, my position is: it is plausible that next token prediction won't give rise to general intelligence, and I do not find your argument convincing.
> I am never producing a probability distribution of words (at least not in a way that my conscious self can determine)
Inability to introspect your own word selections does not mean it’s meaningfully different from what an LLM does. There is plenty of evidence that humans do a lot of things that are not driven by conscious choice and we rationalize it after the fact.
> I consider an entire idea and then decide what tokens to enter into the computer in order to communicate the idea to you.
And how is that different? You are not so subtly implying that an LLM can’t consider an idea but you haven’t established this as fact. i.e. You are starting with the assumption that an LLM cannot possibly think and therefore cannot be intelligent, but this is just begging the question.
> sometimes I don't think and just experience feelings like a kiss or the sun on my skin or the euphoria of a piece of music which hits just right. These experiences shape who I am and how I think.
You cannot spin experience as intelligence. LLMs have the experience of reading the entire internet, something you cannot conceive of. Certainly your experiences shape who you are. This is a different axis from intelligence, though.
> This process seems completely detached from words. In contrast, for a language model, there is no thinking outside of producing words.
Both sides of this claim seem dubious. The second half in particular seems to be founded on nothing. Again, you are asserting with no support that there is no thinking going on.
> It seems self-evident to me that at least parts of the human experience fundamentally can not be reduced to next token prediction. Further, it seems plausible to me that some of these aspects may be necessary for what we consider general intelligence.
I don’t think anyone sane is claiming an LLM can have a human experience. But it is not clear that a human experience is necessary for intelligence.
But a LLM shows similiar effects.
COCONUT, PCCoT, PLaT and co are directly linked to 'thinking in latent space'. yann lecun is working on this too, we have JEPA now.
Also how do you describe or explain how an LLM is generating the next token when it should add a feature to an existing code base? In my opinion it has structures which allows it to create a temp model of that code.
For sure a LLM lack the emotional component but what we humans also do, which indicates to me, that we are a lot closer to LLMs that we want to be, if you have a weird body feeling (stress, hot flashes, anger, etc.) your 'text area/llm/speech area' also tries to make sense of it. Its not always very good in doing so. That emotional body feeling is not that aligned with it and it takes time to either understand or ignore these types of inputs to the text area/llm/speech part of our brain.
I'm open for looking back in 5 years and saying 'man that was a wild ride but no AGI' but at the current quality of LLMs and all the other architectures and type of models and money etc. being thrown at AGI, for now i don't see a ceiling at all. I only see crazy unseen progress.
I don't understand what part of what I said you disagree with.
Before I start typing, I think abstractly about the topic
Before you start typing, an fMRI machine can tell you which finger you'll lift first, before you know it yourself.
We are not special. Consciousness is literally a continuous hallucination that we make up to explain what we do and what we think, after the fact. A machine can be trained to behave identically, but it's not clear if that's the best way forward or not.
Edit due to rate limiting: to answer your question, the substrate your mind uses to drive this process can be considered an array of tokens that, themselves, can be considered 'words.'
It's hard to link sources -- what am I supposed to do, send you to Chomsky and other authorities who have predicted none of what's happening and who clearly understand even less?
> (Edit: to answer your question, the substrate your mind uses to drive this process can be considered an array of tokens that, themselves, can be considered 'words.')
This seems like a factual claim. Can you link a source?
(Also why respond in the form of an edit?)
What's your argument? An fMRI can tell which finger I will lift first before that information makes its way to my consciousness, ergo next word prediction is sufficient for general intelligence? Do you hear yourself?
> And if you look at Boston Dynamics, Unitree and Generalist's progress on robotics
Their progress is almost nought. Humanoids are stupid creations that are not good at anything in the real world. I'll give it to the machine dogs, at least they can reach corners we cannot.
Not sure if you're being sincere or sarcastic but some of us have lived through several AI winters now. And the fact that such a phenomenon exists is because of this terrible amount of hype the topic gets whenever any progress is made.
Which ones? At least in the last 4 years, there was no AI winter.
The late 70s, again in the late 80s. See wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter
Yeah and if you look at the blocking factors at that time (data, compute) these type of limits currently are non existend.
There is a difference to be acknowledged: in the 70s/80s the whole world didn't suddenly start to shift to AI right?
So why do so many smart and/or rich people push this? Hype? Yeah sure but hype was here for crypto too.
I bet its an undelying understanding and the right time with the right components: Massive capital for playing this game long enough to see through the required initial investment, internet for fast data sharing, massive compute for the amount of data and compute you need, real live business relevant results (it already disrupts jobs) etc.
History started well before 4 years ago
> Progress is huge and fast
is it? we're currently scaled on data input and LLMs in general, the only thing making them advance at all right now is adding processing power
Same thing happened with self-driving cars. Oh and cryptocurrencies.
Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. Its not comparable.
Crypto was flawed from the beginning and lots of people didn't understood it properly. Not even that a blockchain can't secure a transaction from something outside of a blockchain.
The LLMs are flawed, and lots of people don't understand them properly.
People are researching how to make LLMs more stable and from a statistic point of view, we already now down to 10% (progress is made here).
LLMs don't have to be perfect, they just need to be as good as humans and cheaper or easier to manage.
> Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has. Its not comparable.
$100+ billion in R&D and it's not comparable... hmm
> Self-driving had never the amount of compute, research adoption and money than what the current overall AI has.
And yet they don't do really good jobs with pretty much anything, save for software development, to which people still seem pretty split as far as it being a helpful thing. That's before we even factor in the cost.
I find them very helpful. I use gemini regularly for multiply things.
I also believe that whatever code researchers and other non software engineers wrote before coding agents, were similiar shitty but took them a lot longer to write.
Like do you know how many researchers need to do some data analysis and hack around code because they never learned programming? So so many. If they know how to verify their data (which they needed to know before already), a LLM helps them already.
There is also plenty of other code were perfection doesn't matter. Non SaaS software exists.
For security experts, we just saw whats happening. The curl inventor mentioned it online that the newest AI reports for Security issues are real and the amount of security gaps found are real and a lot of work.
Image generation is very good and you can see it today already everywere. From cheap restaurants using it, to invitations, whatsapp messages, social media, advertising.
I have a work collegue, who is in it for 6 years and he studied, he is so underqualified if you give me his salary as tokens today, i wouldn't think for a second to replace him.
OpenAI post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47921262
Tried to delete this submission in place of it but too late.
Usually we prefer the best third-party article to corporate press releases (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) - I've put a link to the latter in the top text above.
Impossible to take any of this seriously when it constantly refers to AGI.
Especially when the OpenAI definition of AGI is only in financial terms (when it becomes profitable), which can be easily manipulated.
Why is this being made public?
It’s an agreement between a public company and a highly scrutinized private company. Several of the provisions will change what happens in the marketplace, which everyone will see.
I imagine the thinking was that it’s better to just post it clearly than to have rumors and leaks and speculations that could hurt both companies (“should I risk using GCP for OpenAI models when it’s obviously against the MS / OpenAI agreement?”).
Also it's about OpenAI going public.
Might have something to do with the MSFT quarterly report tomorrow
Interesting perspective. Would love to see more discussion on this.