3 ms·
I don’t understand why the article leads with SoftBank. A lot of the other points in the article are pretty good, though I suspect that Microsoft is going to fu
by devjab 2y ago
I don’t understand why the article leads with SoftBank. A lot of the other points in the article are pretty good, though I suspect that Microsoft is going to fund OpenAI for a long time since it lets their co-pilot shenanigans go semi-unnoticed. Which may be a little tinfoil, but with stuff like Teams being bundled getting them into regulatory trouble I’d assume they want as little focus on their AI “bundle” as possible. That and a lot of what they invest in OpenAI goes into Azure anyway.
That part, and the points about subscriptions and losses on the dollar comes in later though. Maybe there is something I don’t understand, but I almost stopped reading the article when it touched on the SoftBank investment. How is that even remotely relevant?
- mvdtnz 2y agoHe explains very clearly in the article why it's relevant.
- devjab 2y agoIt’s exactly that explanation which makes absolutely no sense. Having someone with a history of poor investments bet on you signifies absolutely nothing. Especially not when they’ve done well on some of their investments. Nowhere does the author explain why on earth OpenAI would be desperate to accept what they call “dumb money”. Maybe if it was enough money to buy leadership, but it obviously isn’t. So what is the issue here exactly?