• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t know how it will eventually happen, but Microsoft is going to own everything open ai someday. They are playing the long game

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Lol no.

          They aren’t going to extinguish OpenAI, they are going to use their tech for everything

            • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’d only work with proprietary tech.

              AI is pure math and that math is freely available. There are already many competitors with similar functionality and there isn’t much Microsoft can do to change that.

              • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                EEE has been used against open source tools in the past (it’s where the extend part comes in), and crushing competition with the full weight of the MS machine is kinda the point. I think you’re being too quick to handwave it away, but I’d love to be wrong. In any case, not interested in changing your mind enough to argue with you about it. Have a nice day!

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            No, they are going to sell the tech to others, microsoft doesnt know what to do with it. Extinguish doesn’t mean the thing no longer exists, it means that the entity openai, and it’s mission and what it was created for gets extinguished. And microsofts version of that geared towards shareholder value

            • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That would mean having a monopoly on computation, which is never gonna happen.

      • VubDapple@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        My speculation is that they paid Sutskever a lot of money to go away and keep his mouth shut

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      11 months ago

      They already do. Their licensing agreement with OpenAI is crazily favourable to them. They have basically unlimited rights to use OpenAI’s tech forever, and have a claim on most of OpenAI’s future profits.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        right now they have a very favourable deal, but don’t control the for-profit entity or the non-profit entity (officially) - which means all they can actually leverage is the tech that openai makes for their own uses.

        and microsoft making things often just flops hard, look at what they are doing with it, your start menu talks to you now.

        the goal is not to have a favourable deal, it’s to grow shareholder value by owning openai in 6-7 years

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s a hell of a “non-profit” to “mother of for-profit monopolists” transition. Obviously it had started years ago and this past few weeks was just the calamitous release of pent-up tension. But still, Microsoft of all companies.

        • EnderMB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The firing and subsequent rehire/board change was clearly orchestrated in a way to benefit Altman and Microsoft. I don’t have the hate boner for Microsoft that most Lemmy users have, but it’s not a particularly great sign of a healthy tech company your “owner” feels the need to pull a stunt like this.

          • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Yea I wasn’t trying to channel any particular Microsoft hate. You could probably sub any of the big tech companies in. Either way it’s a massive for-profit to the point of pushing the lines of monopolism.

    • Knusper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, at this point, it feels like beating a dead horse, but somehow they’re still doing Embrace-Extend-Extinguish…

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    Nothing good comes from criminal billionaires like Altman or Gates.

    • Hubi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Gates did pretty well with his work against Malaria.

    • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      People are still blaming Gates as if he didn’t retire a few years ago.

      Satya Nadella is currently the Microsoft CEO.

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      So how exactly are they criminals? I must’ve missed their trials where they got convicted of a crime

      • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        So your definition of the word criminal only extends to people who got caught and convicted? In your definition a murderer who hasn’t been caught is not a criminal?

        • rckclmbr@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          *caught

          (Not being snarky, i realize english might not be your first language),

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          No, he’s not, because nobody has proven that he actually did murder someone.

          Saying someone is a criminal without any actual evidence and due process is possibly very harmful for that person, you’d agree if someone accused you of doing something you didn’t do and faced having your life ruined over such a baseless accusation

            • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Well, if they have to discern the two meanings, it’s because it might have a different meaning in different contexts, at least that’s how I’d understand it.

              The context of “Altman is a criminal” fits neither, as it’s not a publicly known fact that he has commited a crime, nor has he been convicted of one.

              Allegations that his sister made are just that, allegations, it does not make him a criminal.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Microsoft is getting a non-voting observer seat on the nonprofit board that controls OpenAI as well, the company announced on Wednesday.

    “I am extremely grateful for everyone’s hard work in an unclear and unprecedented situation, and I believe our resilience and spirit set us apart in the industry.

    OpenAI adding Microsoft to the board as a “non-voting observer” means that the tech giant will have more visibility into the company’s inner workings but not have an official vote in big decisions.

    Microsoft is a major investor in OpenAI, with a 49 percent stake in the for-profit entity that the nonprofit board controls.

    That led to a big surprise when Altman was ousted, threatening what has quickly become one of the most important partnerships in tech.

    In his memo to employees, Altman said that he harbors “zero ill will” towards Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s co-founder and chief scientist who initially participated in the board coup and changed his mind after nearly all of the company’s employees threatened to quit if Altman didn’t come back.


    The original article contains 372 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 54%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!