- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmit.online
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t know how it will eventually happen, but Microsoft is going to own everything open ai someday. They are playing the long game
Yeah this feels like some kind of coup
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
Lol no.
They aren’t going to extinguish OpenAI, they are going to use their tech for everything
Extinguish isn’t about snuffing the tech out, it’s about pushing everyone else out of the market after you have extended it in a proprietary fashion and used your market dominance to create a defacto monopoly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
That’d only work with proprietary tech.
AI is pure math and that math is freely available. There are already many competitors with similar functionality and there isn’t much Microsoft can do to change that.
EEE has been used against open source tools in the past (it’s where the extend part comes in), and crushing competition with the full weight of the MS machine is kinda the point. I think you’re being too quick to handwave it away, but I’d love to be wrong. In any case, not interested in changing your mind enough to argue with you about it. Have a nice day!
No, they are going to sell the tech to others, microsoft doesnt know what to do with it. Extinguish doesn’t mean the thing no longer exists, it means that the entity openai, and it’s mission and what it was created for gets extinguished. And microsofts version of that geared towards shareholder value
They’re going to extinguish the ability of others to use it to displace them
That would mean having a monopoly on computation, which is never gonna happen.
My speculation is that they paid Sutskever a lot of money to go away and keep his mouth shut
Exactly what I was thinking.
That’s a hell of a “non-profit” to “mother of for-profit monopolists” transition. Obviously it had started years ago and this past few weeks was just the calamitous release of pent-up tension. But still, Microsoft of all companies.
The firing and subsequent rehire/board change was clearly orchestrated in a way to benefit Altman and Microsoft. I don’t have the hate boner for Microsoft that most Lemmy users have, but it’s not a particularly great sign of a healthy tech company your “owner” feels the need to pull a stunt like this.
Yea I wasn’t trying to channel any particular Microsoft hate. You could probably sub any of the big tech companies in. Either way it’s a massive for-profit to the point of pushing the lines of monopolism.
Yeah, at this point, it feels like beating a dead horse, but somehow they’re still doing Embrace-Extend-Extinguish…
Nothing good comes from criminal billionaires like Altman or Gates.
Gates did pretty well with his work against Malaria.
Yeah but I read a propaganda piece written by some dude in russia so
Lol
People are still blaming Gates as if he didn’t retire a few years ago.
Satya Nadella is currently the Microsoft CEO.
Ha! Absolutely correct and also just to drive the point home, “a few years” means 15 years.
So how exactly are they criminals? I must’ve missed their trials where they got convicted of a crime
So your definition of the word criminal only extends to people who got caught and convicted? In your definition a murderer who hasn’t been caught is not a criminal?
*caught
(Not being snarky, i realize english might not be your first language),
Thanks! Fixed it, and yes it’s my 4th language ^^
No, he’s not, because nobody has proven that he actually did murder someone.
Saying someone is a criminal without any actual evidence and due process is possibly very harmful for that person, you’d agree if someone accused you of doing something you didn’t do and faced having your life ruined over such a baseless accusation
Let’s look at the definition in Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminal
criminal 2 of 2 noun
- one who has committed a crime
- a person who has been convicted of a crime
You’re disregarding #1 completely for some reason and it’s not evident to why.
Well, if they have to discern the two meanings, it’s because it might have a different meaning in different contexts, at least that’s how I’d understand it.
The context of “Altman is a criminal” fits neither, as it’s not a publicly known fact that he has commited a crime, nor has he been convicted of one.
Allegations that his sister made are just that, allegations, it does not make him a criminal.
Goodbye clean AI
Given that Google researchers recently found an insane amount of PII within GPT4, it’s probably the least clean AI in big tech today…
Insane amount of what?
Personally identifiable information
See if Microsoft gives a shit
Is there a consensus on the definition of “clean” AI?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Microsoft is getting a non-voting observer seat on the nonprofit board that controls OpenAI as well, the company announced on Wednesday.
“I am extremely grateful for everyone’s hard work in an unclear and unprecedented situation, and I believe our resilience and spirit set us apart in the industry.
OpenAI adding Microsoft to the board as a “non-voting observer” means that the tech giant will have more visibility into the company’s inner workings but not have an official vote in big decisions.
Microsoft is a major investor in OpenAI, with a 49 percent stake in the for-profit entity that the nonprofit board controls.
That led to a big surprise when Altman was ousted, threatening what has quickly become one of the most important partnerships in tech.
In his memo to employees, Altman said that he harbors “zero ill will” towards Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s co-founder and chief scientist who initially participated in the board coup and changed his mind after nearly all of the company’s employees threatened to quit if Altman didn’t come back.
The original article contains 372 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 54%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
