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.
karmasimida 1 minutes ago [-]
> 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.
lucaslazarus 2 hours ago [-]
It’s pretty much a religious eschatology at this point
rtkwe 1 hours ago [-]
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.
CWwdcdk7h 1 hours ago [-]
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
HumblyTossed 2 hours ago [-]
The continued fleecing of investors.
hx8 2 hours ago [-]
Do the investments make sense if AGI is not less than 10 years away?
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
> 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.
iewj 2 hours ago [-]
What kind of ludicrous statement is this? Any monopoly with viable economics for profit with no threat of competition yields monopoly profits…
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
> 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.
eieiw 1 hours ago [-]
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.
JumpCrisscross 1 hours ago [-]
> 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 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.)
SkyEyedGreyWyrm 52 minutes ago [-]
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
Maxatar 1 hours ago [-]
>"...viable economics for profit..."
OP did not include this requirement in their post because doing so would make the claim trivially true.
rapind 2 hours ago [-]
Best way to achieve AGI: Redefine AGI.
jrflo 1 hours ago [-]
The investments don't make sense.
RobRivera 1 hours ago [-]
Make mine p p p p p p vicodin
otabdeveloper4 1 hours ago [-]
> 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?
theplatman 2 hours ago [-]
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
sourraspberry 1 hours ago [-]
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.
iewj 2 hours ago [-]
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.
lokar 1 hours ago [-]
From the reporting I’ve read his main attributes are being a sociopath with an amazing ability to manipulate people 1:1
stavros 2 hours ago [-]
At this point, AGI is either here, or perpetually two years away, depending on your definition.
greybeard69 2 hours ago [-]
Full Self-Driving 2.0
xienze 2 hours ago [-]
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...
jakeydus 1 hours ago [-]
I knew flappy bird was a bigger deal than it got credit for. Didn’t realize it was agi until just now.
ModernMech 2 hours ago [-]
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.
nikeyshon 2 hours ago [-]
Where do I sign up?
someguyiguess 2 hours ago [-]
Any sufficiently complex LLM is indistinguishable from AGI
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
> Any sufficiently complex LLM is indistinguishable from AGI
Isn't this tautology? We've de facto defined AGI as a "sufficiently complex LLM."
Schlagbohrer 2 hours ago [-]
Yes! Same logic as the financials, in which the companies pass back and forth the same $200 Billion promissory note.
izzydata 1 hours ago [-]
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.
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.
JumpCrisscross 1 hours ago [-]
> They redefined AGI to be an economical thing
Huh. Source? I mean, typical OpenAI bullshit, but would love to know how they defined it.
binary0010 35 minutes ago [-]
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
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?
DanielHB 1 hours ago [-]
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.
dkrich 2 hours ago [-]
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.
dinosor 2 hours ago [-]
> 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?
aurareturn 2 hours ago [-]
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.
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
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].
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
jakeydus 1 hours ago [-]
Don’t worry I’m sure there’s a few products without copilot integration still. They’ll get to them before too long.
airstrike 2 hours ago [-]
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.
azinman2 2 hours ago [-]
This was actually really helpful. I feel like it should be done for all PR speak.
JumpCrisscross 1 hours ago [-]
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.
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.
ghostly_s 1 hours ago [-]
> 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.
JumpCrisscross 1 hours ago [-]
> "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.)
auscompgeek 59 minutes ago [-]
In isolation sure. But in context with the other points it makes it look like "they" refers to Microsoft in all the dot points.
1 hours ago [-]
airstrike 1 hours ago [-]
Presumably the paid version would be even better! But this free translation is already remarkable
Wait, I thought OpenAI had to pay Microsoft until AGI was achieved or something? Am I misremembering? Is that a different thing?
staminade 8 minutes ago [-]
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.
ksherlock 29 minutes ago [-]
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)
dist-epoch 40 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
sourraspberry 1 hours ago [-]
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.
chasd00 1 hours ago [-]
This gives OpenAI the ability to goto AWS instead of exclusively on Azure. I guess Azure really is hanging on by a thread.
Perhaps they should use OpenAI models to figure out how to rollout IPv6.
WorldMaker 31 minutes ago [-]
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.
52 minutes ago [-]
happyPersonR 36 minutes ago [-]
lol GitHub doesn’t run on azure at msft
They still run their own platform.
Andrex 13 minutes ago [-]
Github CEO threatened the entire stack was in the process of migrating to Azure.
Well, you see, they just can't find a checkbox for ipv6 support in the IIS GUI on their ingress servers.
torginus 21 minutes ago [-]
What? I thought Azure will always have the Sharepoint/Office/Active Directory cash cow.
isk517 8 minutes ago [-]
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.
Donald 57 minutes ago [-]
Isn't this expected if OpenAI models are going to be listed on AWS GovCloud as a part of the Anthropic / Hegseth fall-out?
freediddy 53 minutes ago [-]
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%?
dijit 41 minutes ago [-]
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).
saaaaaam 4 minutes ago [-]
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!
freediddy 38 minutes ago [-]
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?
zozbot234 26 minutes ago [-]
> 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?
tonyedgecombe 33 minutes ago [-]
About the same as they wasted on Nokia.
solumunus 30 minutes ago [-]
They haven’t sold anything they’ve been diluted.
PunchyHamster 45 minutes ago [-]
Why would they acquire more when company is still not making profit ? To be left with bigger bag ?
concinds 1 hours ago [-]
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?
antonkochubey 56 minutes ago [-]
They forgot the "hey ChatGPT, rewrite this to have better impact on the company stock" before submitting it
einsteinx2 1 hours ago [-]
I noticed the exact same thing. I read the original, went back to read it again and it’s completely changed.
ZeroCool2u 2 hours ago [-]
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.
aurareturn 2 hours ago [-]
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.
jfoster 2 hours ago [-]
Good for Google Cloud, bad for Gemini = ??? for Google
stavros 2 hours ago [-]
How is it good for Gemini that it's not available on two out of three major cloud platforms?
aurareturn 2 hours ago [-]
It isn't. That's why I said "might not be good for Gemini".
stavros 1 hours ago [-]
Oof, I completely missed that "not", thanks.
retinaros 1 hours ago [-]
that will likely mean the end of gemini models...
Schlagbohrer 2 hours ago [-]
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.
ModernMech 2 hours ago [-]
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!?
Tried to delete this submission in place of it but too late.
aurareturn 2 hours ago [-]
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?
Handy-Man 2 hours ago [-]
They were paying them 20% of the revenue from the hosted OpenAI products I believe?
bilbo0s 2 hours ago [-]
Does this mean they will host OpenAI products but not pay them? Or does it mean they are paying them in some other way?
HarHarVeryFunny 1 hours ago [-]
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.
borski 27 minutes ago [-]
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.
deaux 44 minutes ago [-]
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).
Handy-Man 1 hours ago [-]
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.
aurareturn 2 hours ago [-]
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.
Handy-Man 2 hours ago [-]
It also restricted Microsoft from "partnering" with anyone else. Wouldn't be surprised if we see another news like Amazon, Alphabet investing in Anthropic.
aurareturn 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think Microsoft ever had that restriction. They partnered with everyone already.
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.
delecti 14 minutes ago [-]
Are they getting paid in actual money? Or are the AI companies "paying" their infrastructure bills with IOU/equity.
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.
dahcryn 2 hours ago [-]
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.
> 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.
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
What fraction of Azure compute does OpenAI represent? (Does the $250bn commitment have a time period? Is it legally binding?)
runako 2 hours ago [-]
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.
2 hours ago [-]
einrealist 2 hours ago [-]
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)?
2 hours ago [-]
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
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.
So AWS can finally use OpenAI and not only OSS version.
martinald 1 hours ago [-]
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.
easton 2 hours ago [-]
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.
fengkx 2 hours ago [-]
> 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.
airstrike 2 hours ago [-]
"Advancing Our Amazing Bet" type post
31276 2 hours ago [-]
Pursue "new opportunities"? Microslop is dumping OpenAI and wishes it well in its new endeavors.
aurareturn 2 hours ago [-]
I read this as the other way. OpenAI was desperate to dump Microsoft.
JumpCrisscross 60 minutes ago [-]
> 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].
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.
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
> 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.
eieiw 1 hours ago [-]
That’s funny.
Why is it Altman is facing kill shots and Dario isn’t?
JumpCrisscross 1 hours ago [-]
> 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.
"We want to sell surveillance services to the US gov. MSFT was hesitant so we gave ourselves room to do it without them."
Schlagbohrer 1 hours ago [-]
Extremely hard to believe that MSFT would have any hesitancy about working with the US government.
freejazz 2 hours ago [-]
Impossible to take any of this seriously when it constantly refers to AGI.
Schlagbohrer 1 hours ago [-]
Especially when the OpenAI definition of AGI is only in financial terms (when it becomes profitable), which can be easily manipulated.
2 hours ago [-]
chickoeafilae 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ath3nd 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
aliljet 2 hours ago [-]
Why is this being made public?
brookst 2 hours ago [-]
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?”).
Schlagbohrer 1 hours ago [-]
Also it's about OpenAI going public.
Rendered at 15:48:36 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
If you present GPT 5.5 to me 2 years ago, I will call it AGI.
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.
"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.
Do you argue in good faith?
There’s a difference between being too early vs being nonsense.
Not in the 1990s. The American e-commerce industry was structurally unprofitable prior to the dot-com crash, an event Amazon (and eBay) responded 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.)
OP did not include this requirement in their post because doing so would make the claim trivially true.
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?
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.
...just please stop burning our warehouses and blocking our datacenters.
Isn't this tautology? We've de facto defined AGI as a "sufficiently complex LLM."
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.
Huh. Source? I mean, typical OpenAI bullshit, but would love to know how they defined it.
From: https://openai.com/charter/
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?
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.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-and-microsoft-tensions-ar...
I doubt it
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.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-and-microsoft-tensions-ar...
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.
"We" in this sentence refers to both parties; "they" refers to OpenAI. Not a grammatical error.
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.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47616242
[1] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539
They still run their own platform.
https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...
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).
Genuine question because I feel like I’m maybe missing something!
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?
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?
What was I looking at?
Might really increase the utility of those GCP credits.
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.
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.
Tried to delete this submission in place of it but too late.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/04/27/the-next-phase-o...
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.
[1] https://news.microsoft.com/source/2026/04/08/microsoft-annou...
This seems impossible.
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...
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.
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...
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?”).