3 ms·
“We have everything” is not “some underlying rights to the tech.” I dunno what the angle is on minimizing here, but I’ll take the head of Microsoft at his word
by bugglebeetle 3y ago
“We have everything” is not “some underlying rights to the tech.” I dunno what the angle is on minimizing here, but I’ll take the head of Microsoft at his word vs. more strained explanations about why this isn’t the case.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y agoThe AGI exclusion is well known, for example covered here: https://cryptoslate.com/agi-is-excluded-from-ip-licenses-with-microsoft-should-it-be-attained-at-openai/ https://cryptoslate.com/agi-is-excluded-from-ip-licenses-wit... It's also explicitly mentioned in Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI. Much as Musk wants to claim that OpenAI is a subsidiary of Microsoft, even he has to admit that if in fact OpenAI develop AGI then Microsoft won't have any IP rights to it! The context for Nadella's "We have everything" (without of course elaborating on what "everything" referred to) is him trying to calm investors who were just reading headlines about OpenAI imploding in reaction to the board having fired Altman, etc. Nadella wasn't lying - he was just being coy about what "everything" meant, wanting to reassure investors that their $10B investment in OpenAI had not just gone up in smoke.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoOpenAI has not and will likely never develop AGI, so this is akin to saying “Microsoft doesn’t own OpenAI because they have a clause in their contract that’s says they stop owning it when leprechauns exist.” Musk is trying to argue leprechauns exist because he’s mad he got outmaneuvered by Altman, which I imagine will go as well as you’d expect that argument to go in a court of law.