8 ms·
This is wrong. Microsoft has no such rights and its license comes with restrictions, per the cited primary source, meaning a fork would require a very careful a
by himaraya 3y ago
This is wrong. Microsoft has no such rights and its license comes with restrictions, per the cited primary source, meaning a fork would require a very careful approach.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkward-partnership-as-techs-new-power-couple-3092de51 https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-and-openai-forge-awkw...
- dan_quixote 3y agoThis is MSFT we're talking about. Aggressive legal maneuvers are right in their wheelhouse!
- burnte 3y agoYes, this is the exact thing they did to Stacker years ago. License the tech, get the source, create a new product, destroy Stacker, pay out a pittance and then buy the corpse. I was always amazed they couldn't pull that off with Citrix.
- 0xNotMyAccount 3y agoGiven the sensitivity of data handled over Citrix connections (pretty much all hospitals), I'm fairly sure Microsoft just doesn't want the headaches. My general experience is that service providers would rather be seen handling nuclear weapons data than healthcare data.
- incahoots 3y agoMakes sense given their deal with the DoD a year or so ago https://www.geekwire.com/2022/pentagon-splits-giant-cloud-contract-among-amazon-microsoft-google-and-oracle/ https://www.geekwire.com/2022/pentagon-splits-giant-cloud-co...
- drivebyadvice 3y ago> Citrix [...] hospitals My stomach just turned.
- GabeIsko 3y agoYeah it's bad. But it's also why Microsoft can't really roll them over. They actually do something and get payed for it, as horrible as it is.
- burnte 3y agoAs someone who is VP of IT in healthcare, I can understand that sentiment. At least fewer people need access to nuclear secrets, while medical records are simultaneously highly confidential AND needed by many people. It's never dull. :D
- cpeterso 3y agoAnother example: Microsoft SQL Server is a fork of Sybase SQL Server. Microsoft was helping port Sybase SQL Server to OS/2 and somehow negotiated exclusive rights to all versions of SQL Server written for Microsoft operating systems. Sybase later changed the name of its product to Adaptive Server Enterprise to avoid confusion with "Microsoft's" SQL Server. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Server https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Serve...
- svnt 3y agoBut it does suggest a possibility of the appearance of a sudden motive: Open AI implements and releases ChatGPTs (Poe competitor) but fails to tell D’Angelo ahead of time. Microsoft will have access to code (with restrictions, sure) for essentially a duplicate of D’Angelo’s Poe project. Poe’s ability to fundraise craters. D’Angelo works the less seasoned members of the board to try to scuttle OpenAI and Microsoft’s efforts, banking that among them all he and Poe are relatively immune with access to Claude, Llama, etc.
- himaraya 3y agoI think there's more to the Poe story. Sam forced out Reid Hoffman over Inflection AI, [1] so he clearly gave Adam a pass for whatever reason. Maybe Sam credited Adam for inspiring OpenAI's agents? [1] https://www.semafor.com/article/11/19/2023/reid-hoffman-was-privately-unhappy-about-leaving-openais-board https://www.semafor.com/article/11/19/2023/reid-hoffman-was-...
- svnt 3y agoI think it’s more likely that D’Angelo was there for his link to Meta, while Hoffman was rendered redundant after the big Microsoft deal (which occurred a month or two before he was asked to leave), but that’s just a guess.
- alasdair_ 3y agoThey could make ChatGPT++ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B
- dangrover 3y agoChatGPT#
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoHopefully ChatGPT will make it easier to search/differentiate between ChatGPT, ChatGPT++, and ChatGPT# than Google does.
- albert_e 3y agodotGPT
- patapong 3y agoChatGPT Series 4
- eli_gottlieb 3y agoVisual ChatGPT#.net
- TeMPOraL 3y agoAlso Managed ChatGPT, ChatGPT/CLR.
- gfosco 3y agoWSG, Windows Subsystem for GPT
- cyanydeez 3y agoClippyAI
- klft 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- blazespin 3y agoI think without looking at the contracts, we don't really know. Given this is all based on transformers from Google though, I am pretty sure MSFT with the right team could build a better LLM. The key ingredient appears to be mass GPU and infra, tbh, with a collection of engineers who know how to work at scale.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago> I am pretty sure MSFT with the right team could build a better LLM. I wouldn’t count on that if Microsoft’s legal team does a review of the training data.
- blazespin 3y agoYeah, that's an interesting point. But I think with appropriate RAG techniques and proper citations, a future LLM can get around the copyright issues. The problem right now with GPT4 is that it's not citing its sources (for non search based stuff), which is immoral and maybe even a valid reason to sue over.
- johannes1234321 3y agoLike the review which allowed them tonignore licenses while ingesting all public repos in GitHub? - And yes, true, T&C allow them to ignore the license, while it is questionable whether all people who uploaded stuff to GitHub had the rights given by T&C (uploading some older project with many contributors to GitHub etc.)
- bugglebeetle 3y agoDifferent threat profile. They don’t have the TOS protection for training data and Microsoft is a juicy target for a huge copyright infringement lawsuit.
- VirusNewbie 3y agobut why didn't they? Google and Meta both had competing language models spun up right away. Why was microsoft so far behind? Something cultural most likely.
- btown 3y agoArchive of the WSJ article above: https://archive.is/OONbb https://archive.is/OONbb
- breadwinner 3y ago"But as a hedge against not having explicit control of OpenAI, Microsoft negotiated contracts that gave it rights to OpenAI’s intellectual property, copies of the source code for its key systems as well as the “weights” that guide the system’s results after it has been trained on data, according to three people familiar with the deal, who were not allowed to publicly discuss it." Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/20/technology/openai-microsoft-altman-nadella.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/20/technology/openai-microso...
- himaraya 3y agoThe nature of those rights to OpenAI's IP remains the sticking point. That paragraph largely seems to concern commercializing existing tech, which lines up with existing disclosures. I suspect Satya would come out and say Microsoft owns OpenAI's IP in perpetuity if they did.
- breadwinner 3y ago> I suspect Satya would come out and say Microsoft owns OpenAI's IP in perpetuity if they did. Why does he need to do that? He doesn't need to make any such public statement!
- himaraya 3y agoTo reassure investors? He just made the rounds on TV yesterday for this explicit reason. He told Kara Swisher Microsoft has the rights to innovate, not just serve the product, which sounds somewhat close.
- runjake 3y ago1. The article you posted is from June 2023. 2. Satya spoke on Kara Swisher's show tonight and essentially said that Sam and team can work at MSFT and that Microsoft has the licensing to keep going as-is and improve upon the existing tech. It sounds like they have pretty wide-open rights as it stands today. That said, Satya indicated he liked the arrangement as-is and didn't really want to acquire OpenAI. He'd prefer the existing board resign and Sam and his team return to the helm of OpenAI. Satya was very well-spoken and polite about things, but he was also very direct in his statements and desires. It's nice hearing a CEO clearly communicate exactly what they think without throwing chairs. It's only 30 minutes and worth a listen. https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1726782065272553835 https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1726782065272553835 Caveat: I don't know anything.
- himaraya 3y agoTimestamp for "improve upon the existing tech"? I only heard him say they have rights up and down the stack, which sounds different.