3 ms·

The 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 ha

The 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 ago
They 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 ago
  https://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 ago
    I don't see how that makes your case. The license comes with restrictions per the WSJ.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Per anonymous sources? (And yes I read the entire article via my paid subscription to Apple News)
      - himaraya 3y ago
        Don'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 ago
        Okay 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.
        himaraya 3y ago
        Let's assume Microsoft can freely use present-day ChatGPT in its products. If Microsoft wanted to further develop ChatGPT in-house, I imagine the effort would resemble Apple's in-house modem struggles due to tiptoeing around Qualcomm's patents. You can't compare a hostile OpenAI with a cooperative ARM. Even with a cooperative OpenAI, Microsoft restricts internal researcher access to the source code, so the license appears less favorable than you think.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Now let’s assume that Apple could hire 90% of Qualcomm’s engineers and not have to worry about patent lawsuits… Again I’m 100% sure that Microsoft wouldn’t base its entire technology line on another company’s IP without having very favorable licenses. That’s just not how these things work.
        himaraya 3y ago
        They've hired a bunch. Tech giants pass everything through legal—too big not to. IP & patents remain a PITA regardless of market cap. Licensing ChatGPT versions developed by OpenAI seems favorable enough to me. The question boils down to what happens if OpenAI stops development. I highly doubt the bright minds at OpenAI gave away their IP for widely available compute credits.
genman 3y ago
Interesting. 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 ago
What'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 ago
  A 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.

himaraya 3y ago

They 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 ago
https://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 ago
  I don't see how that makes your case. The license comes with restrictions per the WSJ.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Per anonymous sources? (And yes I read the entire article via my paid subscription to Apple News)
    - himaraya 3y ago
      Don'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 ago
        Okay 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.
        himaraya 3y ago
        Let's assume Microsoft can freely use present-day ChatGPT in its products. If Microsoft wanted to further develop ChatGPT in-house, I imagine the effort would resemble Apple's in-house modem struggles due to tiptoeing around Qualcomm's patents. You can't compare a hostile OpenAI with a cooperative ARM. Even with a cooperative OpenAI, Microsoft restricts internal researcher access to the source code, so the license appears less favorable than you think.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Now let’s assume that Apple could hire 90% of Qualcomm’s engineers and not have to worry about patent lawsuits… Again I’m 100% sure that Microsoft wouldn’t base its entire technology line on another company’s IP without having very favorable licenses. That’s just not how these things work.
        himaraya 3y ago
        They've hired a bunch. Tech giants pass everything through legal—too big not to. IP & patents remain a PITA regardless of market cap. Licensing ChatGPT versions developed by OpenAI seems favorable enough to me. The question boils down to what happens if OpenAI stops development. I highly doubt the bright minds at OpenAI gave away their IP for widely available compute credits.

genman 3y ago

Interesting. 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 ago

What'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 ago
A 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.