Microsoft's Nadella is building an AI empire(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Microsoft's Nadella is building an AI empire
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/microsoft-nadella-openai-inflection-9727e77a
84 comments
This lines up with my whole theory around AI which I expect extrapolates to the commercial and enterprise scenarios as well based on how quickly I've seen stuff canned already at my org:
1. This is really cool! How amazing! We can do so much with this.
2. User activity drops off fairly quickly.
3. Oh they want money? Lets wait until the trial expires.
4. Not renewed.
1. This is really cool! How amazing! We can do so much with this.
2. User activity drops off fairly quickly.
3. Oh they want money? Lets wait until the trial expires.
4. Not renewed.
That's my Heygen/D-ID story to the T.
As someone that builds in the video space myself (https://dopplio.com), these pure synthetic tools baffle me (though I do think they're cool)
They weren't realistic enough for sales (we tried), and all other use-cases seem a bit forced
But hey, they're growing and acquiring revenue (I think?) -- so who am I to question
They weren't realistic enough for sales (we tried), and all other use-cases seem a bit forced
But hey, they're growing and acquiring revenue (I think?) -- so who am I to question
They seem to be used for making cheap shitty music videos for bands I’ve never heard of mostly.
The current AI trend is running per the usual playbook. Before it was mobile apps, social media, crypto-currency and now AI.
Like the other trends we'll need for the marketing to die down and see what is actually real and useful. Once we hit that point the money is gone, no more crazy funding. It will also be interesting to see if we get helpful products that makes our lives better or if it's going to be damaging as we've seen with social media or relegated to the backrooms, like crypto-currency.
None of the technologies we've seen trending like this is good or bad on their own, but social media has been completely misused and rather than providing value and promoting human interaction it's used to track us and sell us stuff we don't need. Crypto-currency was, in hindsight, never going to be something that could be promoted to the average user, but is really useful as a backend technology. The current generation of LLMs have the possibility of been incredibly harmful, or extremely useful, but they aren't products in their own right.
Regarding the marketing hype, I think this video from der8auer at CompuTex was funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45CvTHmt_dI basically the AI label is just slapped on EVERY THING.
Like the other trends we'll need for the marketing to die down and see what is actually real and useful. Once we hit that point the money is gone, no more crazy funding. It will also be interesting to see if we get helpful products that makes our lives better or if it's going to be damaging as we've seen with social media or relegated to the backrooms, like crypto-currency.
None of the technologies we've seen trending like this is good or bad on their own, but social media has been completely misused and rather than providing value and promoting human interaction it's used to track us and sell us stuff we don't need. Crypto-currency was, in hindsight, never going to be something that could be promoted to the average user, but is really useful as a backend technology. The current generation of LLMs have the possibility of been incredibly harmful, or extremely useful, but they aren't products in their own right.
Regarding the marketing hype, I think this video from der8auer at CompuTex was funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45CvTHmt_dI basically the AI label is just slapped on EVERY THING.
> Crypto-currency ... is really useful as a backend technology.
I still can't find any really useful examples anywhere. Unless we count gambling and illicit money transfers. All other associated activity appears like a rounding error compared to its non-crypto counterparts to me.
I still can't find any really useful examples anywhere. Unless we count gambling and illicit money transfers. All other associated activity appears like a rounding error compared to its non-crypto counterparts to me.
Web 3, as an idea, is actually pretty good. Its biggest problem is that it's surrounded and promoted by a bunch of cryptobros who see yet another easy grift.
But at face value, if you could add a small seamless transaction cost to the web (idk, it takes 1c to read a blog post and 50c to post a blog comment), you'd basically eliminate almost every form of spam and re-align the incentives in the attention economy away from those of online advertisement. Ultimately it could just save the web from the mess it's become.
The banking and cards system isn't set up for that sort of workflow. Transaction costs are too high and you'd basically tie all your online activity to your real identity. So you need something new.
A distributed ledger would be almost required for future-proofing. There's an enormous juicy opportunity for rent-seeking if you assign a private entity the task of being the arbiter of every transaction of the new web; that needs to be designed out.
But at face value, if you could add a small seamless transaction cost to the web (idk, it takes 1c to read a blog post and 50c to post a blog comment), you'd basically eliminate almost every form of spam and re-align the incentives in the attention economy away from those of online advertisement. Ultimately it could just save the web from the mess it's become.
The banking and cards system isn't set up for that sort of workflow. Transaction costs are too high and you'd basically tie all your online activity to your real identity. So you need something new.
A distributed ledger would be almost required for future-proofing. There's an enormous juicy opportunity for rent-seeking if you assign a private entity the task of being the arbiter of every transaction of the new web; that needs to be designed out.
Federated verifiers who are kept independent out of band are strictly superior to proof-of-x verifiers for a distributed ledger: lower transaction costs, wider feature space, less centralized. Proof-of-x tends towards one verifier, because it's an unregulated marketplace hence tends to monopoly.
The one application where this isn't true is when regulatory risk prevents lawful verifiers -- i.e. illegal transactions. So, it's not coincidence -- proof-of-x will always be dominated by illegal user stories and desire paths as it is now, because that's where it's not strictly inferior.
The one application where this isn't true is when regulatory risk prevents lawful verifiers -- i.e. illegal transactions. So, it's not coincidence -- proof-of-x will always be dominated by illegal user stories and desire paths as it is now, because that's where it's not strictly inferior.
[deleted]
Microtransactions won't work for many people. Deciding to buy or not to buy is expensive. People are afraid of making a mistake and need a significant need to risk buying something. After a few times people have learnt how things work, then the decision loads decreases. Grocery shopping is one of these cases.
> I still can't find any really useful examples anywhere
Ransomware ? /s
Ransomware ? /s
a.k.a. the hype cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle
The only question is if AI has reached the "peak of inflated expectations" yet (in this case it's really high).
The only question is if AI has reached the "peak of inflated expectations" yet (in this case it's really high).
AI has the potential to keep developing and transform the world much more than the other stuff mentioned.
Huh, didn't they JUST shoved it to people's faces with that thing that saves everything you do forever?
Works where archive.ph is blocked:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/microsoft-s-nadella-is...
Text-only:
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/BB1o7AZY
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/microsoft-s-nadella-is...
Text-only:
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/BB1o7AZY
>Copilot GPTs created by customers will be deleted.
For a technology that's arguably going to be very core to a lot of businesses down the road, vendor lock-in looks to be an unmitigable risk.
For a technology that's arguably going to be very core to a lot of businesses down the road, vendor lock-in looks to be an unmitigable risk.
You can run (and even fine tune) good enough LLMs locally on hardware which for a business is very modestly priced, so the risk looks easy to mitigate.
What if LLM and sLLM are just the beginning, and what lies ahead will be a breakthrough on the scale of the steam engine? And it will drive the entire global economy up. Do you think the guys selling horses, in the early 20th century, thought that Ford's cars would be accepted or become widespread ^^?
Truth be told, I feel like we're hitting some diminishing returns on information automation. Most the low hanging fruit is probably done now.
With ageing demographics and increased education around the world, I think the next major productivity gains will be in robotics - replacing all the manual labour and care giving that needs doing in one way or another.
LLMs may be a stepping stone in that journey but hardware cycles don't move like software and hardware adoption is slow and painful. This is part of the reason why VC doesn't like hardware but loves software
With ageing demographics and increased education around the world, I think the next major productivity gains will be in robotics - replacing all the manual labour and care giving that needs doing in one way or another.
LLMs may be a stepping stone in that journey but hardware cycles don't move like software and hardware adoption is slow and painful. This is part of the reason why VC doesn't like hardware but loves software
I think it's very difficult to predict even the near future with so many changes happening at once.
Consider even the previous excitement around the metaverse, that seemed to fizzle due to lack of content. Well now presumably generative AI can (soon) create all the 3D content you like, which could open many new possibilities.
Consider even the previous excitement around the metaverse, that seemed to fizzle due to lack of content. Well now presumably generative AI can (soon) create all the 3D content you like, which could open many new possibilities.
All the virtual possibilities in the world doesn't reduce our burden to care for a growing number of old people. Nor does it reduce our need for food or other natural resources.
These will continue to be the bottleneck especially as we move to a deglobalised world, ageing and shrinking workforces in the developed world with population growth happening in EMs and FMs.
These will continue to be the bottleneck especially as we move to a deglobalised world, ageing and shrinking workforces in the developed world with population growth happening in EMs and FMs.
But robotics certainly will require more intelligence and better software. I had a Roomba for a while and that thing was just to dumb to be actually usable.
1. Copilot makes people 10% more productive
2. Company ranks their employees, lays off the lowest ranking percentage of people responsible for 10% of the productivity
3. Company reduces headcount
Rinse and repeat and then most people will be out of a job, unless stacked ranking is outlawed.
2. Company ranks their employees, lays off the lowest ranking percentage of people responsible for 10% of the productivity
3. Company reduces headcount
Rinse and repeat and then most people will be out of a job, unless stacked ranking is outlawed.
This sounds good in theory. Then you try to use these tools and they don’t really make you more productive. More like asking someone for help, them giving a half baked response, giving up and walking away.
I had a conversation recently about this very thing. They were complaining that Salesforce is very hard to learn, even for simple tasks.
I asked why not use AI assistants? Because in practice they just aren’t capable of connecting the dots between documentation and configuration to complete the task at hand at the required level of customization. And that gap that exists between how things are stated to work and what’s actually required is where a lot of jobs are done and AI isn’t close to fixing. Which is why I still remain convinced that what’s being called AI is nothing more than a marketing tool to sell enterprise software and that jobs are going to be destroyed by it.
I had a conversation recently about this very thing. They were complaining that Salesforce is very hard to learn, even for simple tasks.
I asked why not use AI assistants? Because in practice they just aren’t capable of connecting the dots between documentation and configuration to complete the task at hand at the required level of customization. And that gap that exists between how things are stated to work and what’s actually required is where a lot of jobs are done and AI isn’t close to fixing. Which is why I still remain convinced that what’s being called AI is nothing more than a marketing tool to sell enterprise software and that jobs are going to be destroyed by it.
Ive watched people who swear it makes them more productive lose productivity because it led them down a blind alley and they didnt spot it.
So, maybe it's actually helping offset the silicon valley investor war on compensation a little.
So, maybe it's actually helping offset the silicon valley investor war on compensation a little.
Point 2 and 3 are identical, no?
And it's not like those laid off can't start their own, disruptive ventures. As employees get more efficient, it'll be easier to run small, nimble companies that take on the big leagues. I'm quite optimistic about all of it.
And it's not like those laid off can't start their own, disruptive ventures. As employees get more efficient, it'll be easier to run small, nimble companies that take on the big leagues. I'm quite optimistic about all of it.
Economy of scale and power imbalance increases with more advanced technology, not the other way. A true AGI would allow a single person to replace all other humans. Robot soldiers are bulletproof, cheap to build, and never refuse orders to kill.
I disagree with the notion that power imbalance increases with technology. As time progressed and our technology evolved, the balance of power between a regular human and the human with the most power in the world have gotten closer, not further apart, in my opinion.
AI will be able to automatically find gaps in legislation, find all possible taxation loopholes, find dominant trading patterns that extract all wealth, evolve ads into automated sales agents, automate warfare and cyberwarfare...
And who yields that power and can use it with little consequences will do it.
Why should elites allow the global population to grow indefinetely if it threatens their survival? Predictably the elites will use their advantage to compete against the masses for resources to ensure their continued survival.
And who yields that power and can use it with little consequences will do it.
Why should elites allow the global population to grow indefinetely if it threatens their survival? Predictably the elites will use their advantage to compete against the masses for resources to ensure their continued survival.
I can't possibly understand how anyone could think this. Try living somewhere drone strikes can kill any number of people at any time with no warning and no possible retribution. You don't even know what the person who liked you looks like. For most of human history to kill a man you had to look him in the eye.
Compare the “power” of someone who can launch an arsenal of nuclear weapons or release a new global pandemic virus or organize a trip to mars or moon. You think in the past kings etc were as “powerful” relative to average people?
I am not so optimistic about it.
AI will create a large power asymmetry which will inevitably result in large scale abuse with no limits.
In almost every economy where the elite does not need the support of the population to be wealthy and to exercise territorial control, the result is almost always a brutal dictatorship where the population is weakened and disarmed so they do not revolt.
AI will create a large power asymmetry which will inevitably result in large scale abuse with no limits.
In almost every economy where the elite does not need the support of the population to be wealthy and to exercise territorial control, the result is almost always a brutal dictatorship where the population is weakened and disarmed so they do not revolt.
Yes, the general term for this phenomenon is the "resource curse," also known as the "paradox of plenty." This term refers to the situation where countries with an abundance of natural resources (like minerals, oil, or gas) tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. This can happen because the elites who control the resources do not need to rely on the population for economic productivity and can maintain power without public support, often leading to authoritarian regimes and social inequities.
The elites in the countries that suffer this rely on countries who are buying from them and if democracies made it illegal to do business with such countries many would not be sustainable.
And the curse can be avoided. Norway has successfully avoided the resource curse through creation of a sovereign wealth fund (Government Pension Fund Global) to manage surplus oil revenues but to accomplish this it had a long-standing tradition of democracy and rule of law ensuring government accountability.
The elites in the countries that suffer this rely on countries who are buying from them and if democracies made it illegal to do business with such countries many would not be sustainable.
And the curse can be avoided. Norway has successfully avoided the resource curse through creation of a sovereign wealth fund (Government Pension Fund Global) to manage surplus oil revenues but to accomplish this it had a long-standing tradition of democracy and rule of law ensuring government accountability.
Norway is a country with low population. Most difficult problems a country faces are proportional to population size. Using Norway as an example incurs the risk of following examples that do not scale to larger population sizes.
AI could cause a problem similar to the resource curse. Because you could have a strong service economy while having 99% unemployment.
AI could cause a problem similar to the resource curse. Because you could have a strong service economy while having 99% unemployment.
Above I said Norway "had a long-standing tradition of democracy and rule of law ensuring government accountability". I think it is that tradition that matters far more than having a small vs large population. As far as population goes I think what matters is how homogenous the population is such that there is a general feeling of all being "in the same tribe". A population that has large identifiable groups (blacks, whites, latios, asians, Jews, Indians, ...) can have these groups not caring for each other and even working against each other vs sharing and cooperating with each other. I think multiculturalism is far better than ethno-nationalism however it is also far harder than ethno-nationalism.
> And it's not like those laid off can't start their own, disruptive ventures.
That's a totally unrealistic take... on the scale of "communism". Not every person is a perfect communist, and not every person is a business man.
Now I know you may say that only some need to create disruptive ventures and hire others then, but that's also unrealistic due to power imbalances.
What will turn the wheel is how capitalism works right now: If too many people are unemployed and too few people can afford your mass market product, someone will need to give the unemployed a job or money so they can participate in the "free" market.
That's a totally unrealistic take... on the scale of "communism". Not every person is a perfect communist, and not every person is a business man.
Now I know you may say that only some need to create disruptive ventures and hire others then, but that's also unrealistic due to power imbalances.
What will turn the wheel is how capitalism works right now: If too many people are unemployed and too few people can afford your mass market product, someone will need to give the unemployed a job or money so they can participate in the "free" market.
Oh. Well, in my experience roughly 5% produce 80% of the value and the rest ensure they can focus on that, save the bottom 25% that are net negatives on productivity. The problem is it’s actually really hard to identify who is in the middle and keeping things going and who is a drag on the organization reliably especially given the middle bulge tends to be fairly quiet and the bottom bulge works hard to appear useful.
The purpose of a system is not optimization.
Or as Stafford Beer would say - The purpose of a system is what it does.
Or as Stafford Beer would say - The purpose of a system is what it does.
> Copilot makes people 10% more productive
I'd say Copilot makes me 5% more productive, as in - MS CP bloat adds 5% to the stack of stuff I need to remove from clients' Windows systems. Most of that is because I have to open Edge and cleaning Edge is a particularly tedious process.
None of this is hyperbole, btw. Keeping up with endless new Windows bloat/nags/traps/guff is a regular part of my billable hours.
I'd say Copilot makes me 5% more productive, as in - MS CP bloat adds 5% to the stack of stuff I need to remove from clients' Windows systems. Most of that is because I have to open Edge and cleaning Edge is a particularly tedious process.
None of this is hyperbole, btw. Keeping up with endless new Windows bloat/nags/traps/guff is a regular part of my billable hours.
Why should Microsoft build an Apple Intelligence empire?
The empire dependent on a competing product, how does that work?
Finally some sanity....
At the same time more people have never been more ready to move on from windows, I don’t want A.I. jammed into every nook and crany just the sake of raising stock prices. I want to use A.I. When I want and not have it constantly pushed in my face.
Fortunately Operating Systems is only 10% of MSFTs revenue. I'm sure MSFT cares about getting money out of Windows, but it's not really do-or-die. I think that's kind of why it feels like the OS is languishing - MSFT has found lots of other ways to monetize.
Office sucks, Azure sucks, Windows sucks, xbox sucks and etc. Everything modern microsoft touches turns to crap. The only good thing they have is VScode and even that is getting bloated.
>Office sucks, Azure sucks, Windows sucks, xbox sucks and etc. Everything modern microsoft touches turns to crap.
That might be true, but judging from desktop OS market share, what the competition is doing, sucks more.
That might be true, but judging from desktop OS market share, what the competition is doing, sucks more.
Real competition only works in the fairy tale of the free market, where users have all the time and money they want to make a selection and do the transition. It's not the reality. People use MS products because they have to, not because they choose to. Even MS knows and uses this, let's start from that
linux is more usable today than ever before. The only chokehold that microsoft have on windows is legacy business apps, and office (and various compliance requirements for gov't software that opensource tend not to have, like FEDRAMP).
MacOS is gaining ground, but because their hardware is legitimately superior. I imagine commodity laptops to be a dying breed in a few more years.
Gaming on a windows PC is the last bastion that macs tend not to compete in at all, and on that front there's SteamOS.
Microsoft signed their own OS death warrant when they switched from being backward-compatibility oriented way back in the Vista days. It might take another 2 decades for it all to play out, but from what i can see, it's one straight road down to obsoletion.
MacOS is gaining ground, but because their hardware is legitimately superior. I imagine commodity laptops to be a dying breed in a few more years.
Gaming on a windows PC is the last bastion that macs tend not to compete in at all, and on that front there's SteamOS.
Microsoft signed their own OS death warrant when they switched from being backward-compatibility oriented way back in the Vista days. It might take another 2 decades for it all to play out, but from what i can see, it's one straight road down to obsoletion.
It's all forward looking with MacOS and Linux. Windows is the only OS that can do everything anyone asks of it right now, which is in my book what a computer should do. If games work via Proton/Wine they will have worse performance. Many do not work at all due to requiring anticheat. Windows, as a certain group loves to say, just works.
The sales pitch Microsoft has with Office (including Teams and SharePoint), EntraID (formerly Azure AD) and Azure is pretty strong for companies.
I'm in my 30' so I remember office 97 and 2000.
I still believe that was the peak of their UX.
I still believe that was the peak of their UX.
Windows is the base that they use to get buy in on all their other products though. If everyone was on linux why not switch to google workspace at a third the cost?
A third of the cost? Their lowest tiers start at the same price, and pricing is similar at least up until the enterprise tiers, at which point pricing isn't transparent for either company.
You're not wrong. It would be more challenging, but I think the bundle of services Microsoft offers to companies is easy to get entrenched into? If you get some Azure credits for using their stuff then maybe you don't want to deal with egress fees. Maybe you get LinkedIn Premium for free for all your in-house recruiters. Microsoft Teams isn't great, but at least it comes free instead of paying a ton to run your organization on Slack, etc.
Google Workspace is not comparable. Every large enterprise seems to run on Mac and MS 365.
I've never worked at an enterprise primarily (or even significantly) using mac computers. Are you in creative arts? Many digital art software only run on Mac.
Software engineering. Never had to be forced to a Windows computer, fortunately. Past 5 years mostly everyone seems to have switched.
Trying to write software on a mac sounds like hell. The utter lack of proper IDE tools and feature parity.
I am using the same IDE I always used on Linux. Anything that works there works on Mac too. The only thing not available is Visual Studio (the older, bigger one) - thankfully I don't need that one, but I wouldn't want to use it on Windows either.
I mean theyre definitely comparable. I agree office sees wider use but worse decisions have been made to save however many millions large corporations are spending here.
I think you need to get out of tech if you think every large enterprise runs on mac
I think you need to get out of tech if you think every large enterprise runs on mac
No, the enterprise features of Azure AD, InTune etc really are not comparable. A large enterprise can't run on Google. Sure - smaller firms can and maybe should, it's much simpler.
2 of the 5 companies Ive worked for have been on google workspaces. Both fortune 500 companies
Interesting... I worked for a much smaller company that used it and it was a terrible experience. I was really glad to go back to Teams...
That's right. Just got a new Macbook Pro for myself last week. Couldn't be happier. My Windows PC has been downgraded to a pure gaming appliance and now is kind of collecting dust.
Watch the next few years as people move away from Microsoft and embrace Apple. Lesser of two evils.
Thanks but no thanks. I want to choose the hardware myself. I also want hardware that is upgradable if my needs change after a while. Linux is the way for moving off Windows.
For notebooks I find apple to deliver exactly what I need, at superior quality. I don't really like the os that much compared to Linux distros, but everything just works 99.9% of the time, which is a major plus when trying to deliver good software and make a good impression at work. My 8 year old MacBook still works without major issues despite being wrought through the wringer, which is impressive. For desktop I agree with you, being able to easily modify individual parts is a major boon, and modern Linux distros offer everything one might want if one is willing to tinker a little bit.
I’m an Apple fanboy, big time.
At the same time I find categories like “god” and “evil” difficult when used in the context of corporates.
Maybe Apple can be described as more honest.
They sell you extremely expensive hardware so that they don’t need your data to be monetized.
I think that’s a fair deal.
At the same time I find categories like “god” and “evil” difficult when used in the context of corporates.
Maybe Apple can be described as more honest.
They sell you extremely expensive hardware so that they don’t need your data to be monetized.
I think that’s a fair deal.
Don't assume they will never double-dip. The AppStore has ads inspite of Apple being a more "premium" platform.
Yeah sure. They might break their end of the deal.
But it will have consequences.
But it will have consequences.
Nobody want's that – it happens, as part of a trade-off to improve rapidly and dial it in early into something that's good, before it is so good, that absolutely everyone will want/need it.
I read the last sentence as "ai constantly punched in my face"
The consumer never knows what they want.
That being said, I would hate an always on AI always watching my actions and phoning back home to Microsoft.
That being said, I would hate an always on AI always watching my actions and phoning back home to Microsoft.
Apple is going to use on every device chatGPT by openAI (effectively Microsoft). So good luck with your battle.
[deleted]
1. Nobody chooses Microsoft - it's rammed down their throats by corp IT or gaming addiction.
2. Alternatives are $3000 macs with 1% of the ecosystem, or an enthusiast OS that doesn't work with the most popular graphics card vendor and constantly breaks.
SteamOS (via Steam Deck) is surprisingly amazing for gaming. Most of the titles I tried worked perfectly fine without any configuration changes.
I haven't felt the need to use Windows for years now thanks to this.
I haven't felt the need to use Windows for years now thanks to this.
> enthusiast OS that doesn't work with the most popular graphics card vendor
It's not exactly there yet (especially that you need some technical knowledge to troubleshoot stuff). But I am getting similar performance playing games on Linux that I would be getting on Windows.
It's not exactly there yet (especially that you need some technical knowledge to troubleshoot stuff). But I am getting similar performance playing games on Linux that I would be getting on Windows.
WSJ article comment:
> The LLM bubble will be much bigger than the .com bubble from the 1990s. Its ultimate burst in 2026 will be also epic.
Like .com dark fiber, post-bubble dark GPU/TPU/NPUs would eventually find new use cases.
> The LLM bubble will be much bigger than the .com bubble from the 1990s. Its ultimate burst in 2026 will be also epic.
Like .com dark fiber, post-bubble dark GPU/TPU/NPUs would eventually find new use cases.
[deleted]
[deleted]
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/gpt-builder-is-bei...