Microsoft and OpenAI’s increasingly complicated relationship
We recorded 5 claims from this post. 4 were checked against evidence. 1 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (5)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
“It has a right to about 49% of a for-profit subsidiary of OpenAI’s profits, up until a very complex point that may require litigation to resolve, but the for-profit hasn’t made any profits, and the for-profit is owned by a non-profit.”
What we tested: Microsoft's right is to about 49% of the profits of OpenAI's for-profit subsidiary, up to a cap that may need litigation to settle; that subsidiary has made no profits and is owned by a non-profit.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“You might think that after Satya offered to rescue Sam after Sam got fired, that Sam wouldn’t want to compete directly with Microsoft, but they are.”
What we tested: Sam Altman's OpenAI competes directly with Microsoft, even though Satya Nadella offered to rescue Altman after he was fired.
What happened: The reported pitches present OpenAI's enterprise offering as an alternative purchase for existing Microsoft customers. That satisfies the ordinary commercial meaning of direct competition. (Reuters, republished by Yahoo Finance, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“You might think that if OpenAI said, hey, we don’t want our software used for military purposes, Microsoft would respect that and say, ok cool, but they haven’t.”
What we tested: Microsoft has not respected OpenAI's stated wish that its software not be used for military purposes.
What happened: The report places this Microsoft presentation at an October 2023 Defense Department seminar, when OpenAI's policy prohibited military use. Microsoft acknowledged the proposed application but said it had not begun implementing it. (The Intercept, )
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Playing the field with Mistral wasn’t enough; now he is building a really big model, big enough to compete directly with GPT-4, internally:”
What we tested: Beyond partnering with Mistral, Microsoft is building a large model in-house that is big enough to compete directly with GPT-4.
What happened: The original article identifies MAI-1 as Microsoft's internal project and describes its intended competitive class. Its underlying source is The Information, rather than an independent technical evaluation. (The Decoder, )
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“Gary Marcus doesn’t know exactly what to make of all this, but feels like it could matter eventually. A lot.”
What we tested: The increasingly complicated Microsoft–OpenAI relationship could eventually matter a great deal.
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: As far as Marcus understands, Microsoft does not own 49% of OpenAI.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: Microsoft put $11 billion in (the post says 'into Microsoft', apparently a typo for OpenAI) and demanded an exclusive from OpenAI, yet Microsoft itself is 'seeing other people', that is, working with other AI partners.