undefined | Better HN

0 pointsx86x872y ago0 comments

hah. these people obviously have not worked for Microsoft. You need to remember why this tech emerged in a place like OpenAI and not MS or Google. The structure and the politics of a big corporation are not conducive to cutting edge tech. They may go to Microsoft, but they will not be able to innovate in the same way and will probably fall into irrelevance in the long run.

0 comments

yellow_postit2y ago

I’d bet a bunch actually have at either Google, Microsoft or Meta Research. Microsoft’s had an ok track record recently of letting acquisitions stay pretty independent. The atrophy and cultural reversion to the mean of a large corporation will still happen, but at a slower pace.

If I were Microsoft I’d also look at making it easy to get investment from folks leaving soon after the acquisition through their investment arm.

t-writescode2y ago

Are you familiar with Microsoft Research? It's literally a section of the company that is given basically free reign to do "stuff" in hopes that maybe, possibly, it might someday see the light of day or be impactful.

Here's an example of some of their work: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Microsoft+Research+four+color+theo...

Literally a random math problem, basically nothing to do with Microsoft on the surface ... except that the scientist working on it happened to prove the theorum using a very, very robust algorithm and then wrote a proof program on top of it to prove the program was correct. The underlying parts of that proof program eventually went on to become the thing that validates graphics drivers on Windows ... 7 and beyond? My memory is fuzzy about "how it ended up being useful at Microsoft" part.

But yeah, MSR does random stuff.

ben_w2y ago

In the long run everything reverts to the mean. In the timescale of normal software developer tenure, they could all join MS, then get 300% turnover, and still have nearly the same culture.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse