Most active commenters
  • justinclift(6)
  • fastball(5)
  • KPGv2(3)

←back to thread

Microsoft and OpenAI's close partnership shows signs of fraying

(www.nytimes.com)
326 points jhunter1016 | 12 comments | 18 Oct 24 11:11 UTC | HN request time: 1.583s | source | bottom
Show context
cynicalpeace ◴[18 Oct 24 18:48 UTC] No.41882321[source]▶
I'm betting against OpenAI. Sam Altman has proven himself and his company untrustworthy. In long running games, untrustworthy players lose out.

If you disagree, I would argue you have a very sad view of the world, where truth and cooperation are inferior to lies and manipulation.

replies(17): >>41882351 #>>41882366 #>>41882502 #>>41882707 #>>41882720 #>>41882775 #>>41882946 #>>41883233 #>>41883261 #>>41883435 #>>41883475 #>>41883560 #>>41883612 #>>41883665 #>>41883825 #>>41883868 #>>41884385 #
KPGv2 ◴[18 Oct 24 20:37 UTC] No.41883261[source]▶
> In long running games, untrustworthy players lose out.

Amazon and Microsoft seem to be doing really well for themselves.

replies(1): >>41883387 #
Barrin92 ◴[18 Oct 24 20:51 UTC] No.41883387[source]▶
Because they're trustworthy. If you buy a package on Amazon or Craigslist, who do you trust to deliver it to your door tomorrow? People love the trope that their neighbor is trustworthy and the evil big company isn't, but in reality it's exactly the other way around. If you buy your heart medication you buy it from Bayer or an indie startup?

Big, long lived companies excel at delivering exactly what they say they are, and people vote with their wallet on this.

replies(3): >>41883429 #>>41884618 #>>41945606 #
justinclift ◴[19 Oct 24 00:20 UTC] No.41884618[source]▶
> Because they're trustworthy.

Amazon are trustworthy?

That's going to be news to the large number of people who've received counterfeit books, dodgy packages, and so on. This is not a new problem:

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=amazon+counterfeit

replies(1): >>41899030 #
1. fastball ◴[20 Oct 24 22:31 UTC] No.41899030[source]▶
And that is Amazon deliberately pawning counterfeits? Or is that other bad actors taking advantage of "Fulfilled by Amazon" infrastructure and its weakpoints?

There is a difference between the two.

replies(1): >>41901597 #
2. justinclift ◴[21 Oct 24 07:31 UTC] No.41901597[source]▶
> There is a difference between the two.

Amazon has been ignoring the problem for a long time, and is well aware of it.

They're so aware of it that I'd personally (not a lawyer though) consider them culpable due to their inaction in making any substantial actions towards fixing the problems.

replies(1): >>41907927 #
3. fastball ◴[21 Oct 24 20:01 UTC] No.41907927[source]▶
How do you know that haven't tried?
replies(2): >>41910067 #>>41945621 #
4. justinclift ◴[22 Oct 24 00:40 UTC] No.41910067{3}[source]▶
Would the massive, ongoing counterfeiting problems be something you'd except as evidence of that? :)
replies(1): >>41917256 #
5. fastball ◴[22 Oct 24 18:33 UTC] No.41917256{4}[source]▶
No. It being an ongoing problem doesn't mean they're not trying to fix it. Is that the only evidence you have? "Problem exists"? Some problems are just... hard problems.

Google has massive issues with SEO spam, and has for a long time. Does that mean they're not trying to deliver higher quality search results?

replies(3): >>41930800 #>>41930804 #>>41945637 #
6. justinclift ◴[24 Oct 24 00:50 UTC] No.41930800{5}[source]▶
In that case, what would you find acceptable as evidence?
replies(1): >>41992756 #
7. justinclift ◴[24 Oct 24 00:51 UTC] No.41930804{5}[source]▶
> Does that mean they're not trying to deliver higher quality search results?

Clearly that's not a goal they're aiming for, nor have they been aiming for that for years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGVk2KVokQ

8. KPGv2 ◴[25 Oct 24 14:28 UTC] No.41945621{3}[source]▶
> How do you know that haven't tried?

I'm not aware of any evidence they have, so evidence that have not tried outweighs my fantasies that thy have.

replies(1): >>41992710 #
9. KPGv2 ◴[25 Oct 24 14:30 UTC] No.41945637{5}[source]▶
> Google has massive issues with SEO spam, and has for a long time. Does that mean they're not trying to deliver higher quality search results?

Google has a history of publicly discussing their efforts to fix this, not to mention conflict with legitimate businesses complaining that they've been caught in the crossfire of Google's war on SEO spam.

I'd consider that powerful evidence they're trying.

Is there similar evidence of legitimate businesses getting in trouble by Amazon's sincere efforts to stop counterfeit sales? Or instead is there evidence of legitimate businesses getting hurt by Amazon's failure to do stop it?

10. fastball ◴[30 Oct 24 07:52 UTC] No.41992710{4}[source]▶
Have you actually looked into this at all, or are you expecting to be magically "aware" of things that are not your purview? Amazon literally has a Counterfeit Crimes Unit that exists entirely for this purpose.

Any amount of searching the web would've revealed this to you. Here is a video[1] from 6 days before you made your comment about their efforts.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_7XarmoDIw

replies(1): >>42051758 #
11. fastball ◴[30 Oct 24 07:58 UTC] No.41992756{6}[source]▶
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_7XarmoDIw
12. justinclift ◴[05 Nov 24 14:39 UTC] No.42051758{5}[source]▶
It's not very effective though is it, which is the real problem.

Perhaps they need to give it more resources?