6 ms·
Why he thinks that he has any authority to say this? Because of money and power he has?
by genman 3y ago
Why he thinks that he has any authority to say this? Because of money and power he has?
- scarface_74 3y agoUhh yes. They are Open AIs largest investor and gives Open AI a steep discount on compute.
- est 3y agoMicrosoft literally built the 5th fastest supercomputer for OpenAI to train its GPT3 back in 2020 as part of the 1B investment
- genman 3y agoWell, it still doesn't give him authority to dictate what the non profit should do or do not.
- scarface_74 3y agoThe power literally comes from Microsoft’s ability to single handedly put OpenAI out of business by not giving them a discount on compute. Microsoft already has a perpetual license to all of OpenAIs IP and could easily hire every single one of thier employees without blinking
- himaraya 3y agoThey don't have such a license...Stratechery didn't read his own source. 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...
- scarface_74 3y agohttps://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/09/22/microsoft-teams-up-with-openai-to-exclusively-license-gpt-3-language-model/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/09/22/microsoft-teams-...
- himaraya 3y agoI don't see how that makes your case. The license comes with restrictions per the WSJ.
- scarface_74 3y agoPer anonymous sources? (And yes I read the entire article via my paid subscription to Apple News)
- himaraya 3y agoDon't like the WSJ? The blog post only indicates some kind of exclusive license to GPT-3, not the all-encompassing claim to OpenAI IP you suggest. Microsoft has never indicated such to my knowledge.
- scarface_74 3y agoOkay let’s take your argument at face value. What do you think a trillion dollar market cap company can do with a license and by extending offers to all of OpenAI’s disaffected employees? Think of what Apple can do with a license to ARM and now compare that to what MS could do with a license to GPT 3? Do you really think any company would depend on another companies technology the way that MS is dependent on OpenAI without having a favorable license? I’ve dealt with something similar on a very minute scale on both sides - being a dev lead at a startup where our largest customer accounted for 70% of our revenue and being the dev lead where the company I was working for accounted for 70% of a vendors revenue. Each time, I saw how much power the customer yielded. It involves lawyers, licensing, contingencies, etc. and in both of the cases above - escrowing of code where the customer got the rights in certain conditions. I’m 100% sure that MS has better lawyers than I encountered.
- genman 3y agoInteresting. So you are saying that this power might come from contracts that were biased in favor to Microsoft by someone that might be or might be not hired by Microsoft? People should have learned more carefully from the Nokia case if this is true.
- takinola 3y agoWhat's really interesting is that OpenAI has been maneuvered into a really bad strategic position. Theoretically, they could jump into the arms of any other FAANG and get the compute and funding they need. However, Microsoft remains a 49% equity holder so they don't have much to offer to this new corporate savior. Microsoft effectively licked the OpenAI cookie once they bought such a large stake in the company. The only strategic play left to OpenAI is spite. They can choose to burn down Chat GPT which will lead to a scattering of their talent across competitors (although Microsoft will likely just pick up most). This will slow down Microsoft by a couple of months but will be nothing more than a bump on their way to AI dominance.
- gmt2027 3y agoA strategic play is to release the models - the nuclear option. Go full OpenAI. Even if Microsoft has an exclusive license, leaks and breaches happen. The board should have led with this as an implied threat behind closed doors and given both Altman and Nadella a face-saving public retreat. Altman goes off to start GPTSoft with equity, a license to GPT4 and access to Microsoft's cloud compute. Everyone gets to call this a win. Public humiliation was a mistake.
- rhaps0dy 3y ago> The power literally comes from Microsoft’s ability to single handedly put OpenAI out of business by not giving them a discount on compute. That's not a problem for the non-profit board. If the mission is best served by the non-profit ceasing to exist, they should make it cease to exist.
- iepathos 3y agoThey aren't a non-profit, haven't been since 2019. They are a for-profit corporation with a 100x cap. Microsoft being their largest investor actually do have significant authority here. The board ultimately answers to their investor and employee stakeholders since they are not a non-profit.
- John7149 3y agoMicrosoft own OpenAI equity. Technically he has the authority to do so. At this point he cant do Elon firing as they need to preserve the stock price. You can say in a way the existing board turn rogue and hold him hostage. Once this settle, you will see near 100% board changes. If this not happening, half the OpenAI staff will be gone before next year 4th of July. At that point, their equity will worth significantly less. The crux of OpenAI is not their chatgpt but gpu. They are like Apple and Amazon big enough to make their own gpu. Sam wants to secure gpu access by founding a 2nd NVIDIA. Even if not, they can still be kingmaker. Whoever gpu being used, you will see that stock price shoot up....yes if Intel Arc. The board members arent that smart and thought he try to circumvent them. It is basically ego power play. They never realize how powerful and influential Sam is. At this point it is too late for those board members. Expect them to get shunt by evety investors in SV. As for Quora....hahaha...pretty much another Evernote fate.
- genman 3y agoAnd? They don't own the non profit part of Open AI, they have not invested anything into it. Why he thinks that he has authority to dictate how the non profit should be structured? I don't think he has.
- scarface_74 3y agoOkay. That’s a cute fiction. But what do you think happens to OpenAI if they have to pay market rates for compute?
- timeon 3y agoWhat happens to all the MS product based on GPT?
- kristjansson 3y agoThey continue building them with the perpetual license to the artifacts they have?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rhaps0dy 3y agoLike a company, a nonprofit should be willing to cease operations if that will further its mission more than not doing so.
- scarface_74 3y agoAnd you really think that’s going to happen? How many non profits have you seen that are just as if not more power hungry than for profits — ie every religious organization.
- rhaps0dy 3y agoYeah, maybe it's not going to happen, and that's sad.
- stefan_ 3y agoMatt Levine has a useful diagram on this: https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ixMQ90DVObmo/v0/-1x-1.png https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ixMQ90DVObm...
- genman 3y agoAnd? They don't own the non profit part of Open AI, they have not invested anything into it. Why he thinks that he has authority to dictate how the non profit should be structured? I don't think he has.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoHe doesn't "have the authority to dictate" but he does "have an extremely influential position and his opinion is potentially very important to the non profit".
- rrdharan 3y agoThe Levine newsletter explains this very explicitly. They have no authority on paper. They have plenty of authority in practice by virtue of exercising their power/leverage inherent in OpenAI’s dependence on them for compute resources.
- summerlight 3y agoThe non-profit part won't ever work without Microsoft's finance/infrastructure. Satya might not have nominal power on the board, but he definitely has a power to make OpenAI miserable and proved it over the weekend.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vkou 3y ago> Why he thinks that he has any authority to say this? Because, as Matt Levine pointed out today, there are two ways that you can view OpenAI's corporate governance. On the one hand, you have the board, which has legal control over the entire company and all of its subsidiaries. On the other hand, you have Microsoft, who has money. Under the world view of contracts and corporate governance structures, OpenAI is the company of the board. The board can do whatever they want. Under the world view of 'people like to eat sometime this month, and OpenAI needs to fundraise', OpenAI is a subservient division of Microsoft. Who can do whatever it wants, up to, and including acquiring all of its IP and staff for essentially $0, with zero regulatory oversight or anti-trust problems. On paper, you may have property rights to your house. In practice, someone who has property rights around your house can build a wall around it, and wait for you to either sell it to him for a dollar, or starve. This whole adventure has definitely been a novel (if expensive) take on the 3E's of Microsoft - 'Embrace, Extend, Exterminate'.
- mcmcmc 3y agoI really wish the FTC would get back to busting up this kind of bullshit behavior instead of playing catchup. The cloud giants should be split up, just like AT&T/Bell in the 80s and Standard Oil over 100 years ago. They are bad for business, bad for the free market, and bad for everyone who isn’t getting their pockets lined.
- takinola 3y agoThe cloud business is remarkably competitive. Prices have been dropping. Innovation and new services are happening. This is exactly the type of market you want to have.
- mcmcmc 3y agoThe type of market where if you want to launch a new business the best you can hope for is to be acquired or bullied out of the market? Price is not the only indicator of a competitive market, buyers need options. Innovation is not some panacea for socioeconomic ills. It’s the kind of market that tech bros with zero empathy for anyone who isn’t like them have wet dreams about.