HN Reader

What's the value in investing in a smaller company and then giving up things produced off that investment when the company grows?

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/10/28/the-next-chapter...

Also: Built to Benefit Everyone — by Bret Taylor, Chair of the OpenAI Board of Directors

https://openai.com/index/built-to-benefit-everyone

> "OpenAI can now provide API access to US government national security customers, regardless of the cloud provider."

And this one might be related:

> "OpenAI can now jointly develop some products with third parties. API products developed with third parties will be exclusive to Azure. Non-API products may be served on any cloud provider."

Now, does anyone think MIC customers want restricted, safe, aligned models? Is OpenAI going to provide turnkey solutions, unaligned models run in 'secure sandboxed cloud environments' in partnership with private weapons manufacturers and surveillance (data collection and storage/search) specialists?

This pattern is not historically unusual, turning to government subsidies and contracts to survive a lack of immediate commercial viability wouldn't be surprising. The question to ask Microsoft-OpenAI is what percentage of their estimated future revenue stream is going to come from MIC contracting including the public private grey area (that is, 'private customers' who are entirely state-funded, eg Palantir, so it's still government MIC one step removed).

That basically means in perpetuity, no? Are there any signs we are anywhere near AGI (or even that transformers would be capable of it)?

It seems like Microsoft stock is then the most straightforward way to invest in OpenAI pre-IPO.

This also confirms the $500 billion valuation making OpenAI the most valuable private startup in the world.

Now many of the main AI companies have decent ownership by public companies or are already public.

- OpenAI -> Microsoft (27%)

- Anthropic -> Amazon (15-19% est), Alphabet/Google (14%)

Then the chip layer is largely already public: Nvidia. Plus AMD and Broadcom.

Clouds too: Oracle, Alphabet/GCP, Microsoft/Azure, CoreWeave.

Was Microsoft the blocker before? prior agreements clearly made true open-weights awkward-to-impossible without Microsoft’s sign-off. Microsoft had (a) an exclusive license to GPT-3’s underlying tech back in 2020 (i.e., access to the model/code beyond the public API), and (b) later, broad IP rights + API exclusivity on OpenAI models. If you’re contractually giving one partner IP rights and API exclusivity, shipping weights openly would undercut those rights. Today’s language looks like a carve-out to permit some open-weight releases as long as they’re below certain capability thresholds.

A few other notable tweaks in the new deal that help explain the change:

- AGI claims get verified by an independent panel (not just OpenAI declaring it).

- Microsoft keeps model/product IP rights through 2032, but OpenAI can now jointly develop with third parties, serve some things off non-Azure clouds, and—critically—release certain open-weights.

Those are all signs of loosened exclusivity.

My read: previously, the partnership structure (not just “Microsoft saying no”) effectively precluded open-weight releases; the updated agreement explicitly allows them within safety/capability guardrails.

Expect any “open-weight” drops to be intentionally scoped—useful, but a notch below their frontier closed models.

> OpenAI remains Microsoft’s frontier model partner and Microsoft continues to have exclusive IP rights and Azure API exclusivity

This should be the headline - Microsoft maintains its financial and intellectual stranglehold on OpenAI.

And meanwhile, while vaguer, a few of the bullet points are potentially very favorable to Microsoft:

> Microsoft can now independently pursue AGI alone or in partnership with third parties.

> The revenue share agreement remains until the expert panel verifies AGI, though payments will be made over a longer period of time.

Hard to say what a "longer period of time" means, but I presume it is substantial enough to make this a major concession from OpenAI.

I've read this but it's extremely vague: https://openai.com/index/built-to-benefit-everyone/

As is this: https://openai.com/our-structure/

Especially so if the Non-profit foundation doesn't retain voting control, this remains the greatest theft of all time. I still can't quite understand how it should at all be possible.

Looking at the changes for MSFT, I also mostly don't understand why they did it!

What were they really expecting as an alternative? Anyone can "declare AGI" especially since it's an inherently ill-defined (and agruably undefinable) concept, it's strange that this is the first bullet point like this was the fruit of intensive deliberation.

I don't fully understand what is going on in this market as a whole, I really doubt anyone does, but I do believe we will look back on this period and wonder what the hell we were thinking believing and lapping up everything these corporations were putting out.

I wonder what criteria that panel will use to define/resolve this.

OpenAI self-evaluated to $500B;

Microsoft commitment for $250B of services, a.k.a still 50% of that value is somewhat locked;

AGI still undefined;

Some more kicking of the can toward the future when it comes to payments;

Both have more freedom to do research and offer services;

Overall, lots of magic money talk with pinkie promise in the future and somewhat higher possibility of new products and open weights models.

> Microsoft’s IP rights for both models and products are extended through 2032 and now includes models post-AGI, with appropriate safety guardrails.

Does anyone really think we are close to AGI? I mean honestly?

Just look at how they write it and they are somehow sneaking a NEW organizational level in there

>First, Microsoft supports the OpenAI board moving forward with formation of a public benefit corporation (PBC) and recapitalization.

Does anyone have any clue how OpenAI is actually governed and who works for who and all that?

It’s kafkaesque at best and intentionally confusing, so that you can’t actually regulate it, at worst

I think it's funny and telling that they've used the word "declare" where what they are really doing is "claim".

These guys think they are prophets.

By the time we get 30% global unemployment and another financial crash along the way in the next decade, only then OpenAI would have already declared "AGI".

Likely with in the 2030 - 2035 timeframe.

Perhaps their big bet is that their partnership with Jony Ive will create the first post-phone hardware device that consumers attach themselves with, and then build an ecosystem around that?

Spare me. Sam has been talking about ChatGPT already being AGI for ages, meanwhile still peddling this duplicitous talk about how AGI is coming despite it apparently already being here. Can we act like grownups and treat this like a normal tool? No, no we cannot, for Sam is a hype merchant.

So OpenAI could be on Google (GCP) and AWS, and possibly Claude and Gemini on Azure? that could be a good thing.

I use OpenRouter in multiple applications, the practicality of having one provider to host all possible LLMs is such a win to try and iterate without having to switch the cloud (big for enterprise who are stuck with one cloud provider)

That logical fallacy of, “I spent a week teaching myself this topic and now I’m ready to talk about it like an expert.”

While not unexpected, this is exciting and intriguing.

And of course, looking forward to Microsoft's Zune AI.

I have no idea what @sama is doing but he's doing it quite well.

So OpenAI will declare AGI as soon as ChatGPT is a better AI lawyer than any Microsoft could hire.

The question is does this reflect an increase or decrease in confidence at OpenAI wrt them achieving AGI?

Once we don't need people to make stuff anymore, we need to re-do society so people can get access to all the stuff that's being made. I doubt we do a very good job of that. But otherwise, there's no point in making anything. I guess if we are lucky, the AI overlords will keep us high on soma and let the population naturally decline until we are gone.

OpenAI still don’t have a path to profitability and rely on sweetheart infrastructure deals.

Microsoft has completely given up on homegrown AI and needs OpenAI to have remotely competitive products.

GPT-OSS:20b is a great model for local use. OpenAI continuing to release open weights is good news.