• ButtDrugs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sam probably still controls a ton of shares, so I think effectively this would give them >50% of shares as long as they are partnering.

          • silencioso@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not really if you have to divide resources between two. Computing necessary for training these models is not cheap and there is an obvious opportunity cost here.

            • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              MS has more than enough cash and resources to back two horses.

              Computing necessary for training this models is not cheap and there is an obvious opportunity cost here.

              This also gives them the luxury of trying a different approach.

              • silencioso@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Time will tell my guess is that Microsoft will sale its stake in openai or just drain openai from resources and people until it will disappear.

            • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have no idea what MS is doing with AI internally, but predictive text is only one of the avenues towards AGI which sure seems to be the direction OpenAI (and everyone else currently looking to sell a product) are going. There are certainly other directions MS can go in the same field without putting all their eggs in one basket.

      • Melt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If OpenAI wanted to sell out, they wouldn’t have fired Altman

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re only 2% short of being able to do that. I think Microsoft has a 49% stake.

        • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sam has to own at least a percent or two. Even if he doesn’t bring enough shares to the table to give Microsoft the edge they need, I’m guessing he’s friendly enough with a few shareholders to get them the rest of the way.

            • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Huh, that’s interesting. But I still assume he must have a good enough relationship with enough investors to convince at least 2% of shareholders to back Microsoft if they were partnering with him on a resolution.

      • httpjames@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As much as I’d love to see them back in OpenAI, I don’t think Emmett Shear will give up.

        I have a soft spot for Greg since he was the one who introduced the world to GPT 4 on that developer livestream

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just like cereal companies with name brands like fruit loops will make fruit spins. Why not take profit on the lower end of the market?

        • TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          And there are many other examples too.

          A lot of car manufacturers have brands for the upper class. Like Mercedes -> Maybach, Toyota -> Lexus, Seat -> Cupra. And tyre manufacturers have lower-end brands, like Michelin -> Kleber. Or, even better: a lot of store budget brands for milk, cheese, sausages etc. are manufactured by a big name brand, it’s right on the packaging with the little letters at the bottom. (Manufactured by: XYZ Big Name Brand Ltd.)

          • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I had a teacher in high school, many decades ago, who had owned an orange juice processor. He explained that the generic store brand got the start and end of production runs; name brand got the middle.

            • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Orange juice in particular is a very brand loyalty specific one because oranges naturally do not have a consistent flavor. The main distinguishing flavor between different brands is an additive each brand puts in to make it taste more like their brand of orange juice.

      • gnutrino@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s got to be the lowest effort generic name in existence. “Ah just shift one of the letters to the start and let’s knock off early”