Microsoft Teams Premium: powered by OpenAI’s GPT-3.5
microsoft.com
microsoft.com
This refers to the meeting join link and the last time someone sent me a link like this it was not a delightful experience. I ended up mixing up organisations and accounts.
An example of a good experience is joining a Jitsi Meet meeting because you don’t have to sign up or do anything to join (my comment is on the join experience only). It remains standalone and does not try to link you to anything. There is no time to mess around when joining a meeting.
It's beyond hilarious, two out of three times I end up in the wrong lobby with the wrong people and the wrong account despite doing the exact same thing, based on following the exact same guides on the Internet.
Unless you're using it on your domain-enrolled work computer (which, to be fair, is probably the demographics Microsoft cares about) Teams is basically chatroulette.
What do you mean? I sometimes use Teams on an AD-joined computer, and the multiple-account situation is beyond absurd. The whole freaking app has to restart when changing accounts, even though both are connected through the same exact AzureAD identity.
There is no difference whatsoever between the AD-joined Windows experience and the not-joined-to-anything Linux one.
Ah, no, I mean, if you're using it for your corporate account on your AD-joined computer. These things usually have a single (work) account.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was never meant to be multiple-account, and that was just half-added as an afterthought at some point.
I have my corporate account, me@corp.com, which is also configured on my domain-joined pc. This works well enough.
And with this same account, I connect to a separate tenant, where I'm a "guest". This separate tenant belongs to a partner corp, and they delegate the authentication to our tenant for people in our corp. So, I can almost use my credentials, meaning that I can use my regular login/password but have to have two MFAs (one for each tenant) for some reason.
But the "main" account seems aware of the other one because even on a fresh Windows install, just adding my me@corp account to teams adds the other one too. I just can't switch between the two without restarting teams, so I can only use one at a time.
In Teams, click your face top right to change profiles (accounts), like you would in Edge. It's basically the concept of personas or profiles from Firefox or Chrome, but in Teams.
Note that you shouldn't have to change personas unless you want to. Guests can be invited, and join as their original persona instead of having to have an inside the tent account.
As good as Teams is whithin and across orgs, as long as you stick to one single account, as much it sucks with multiple accounts on the same machine. That, and all the crap like opening files in Teams when Office is installed. But the SharePoint is opening files in the browser instead of the native apps...
Teams Outlook intergration is neat so.
The idea is to have a backend [2], powered by a library [3] that does the heavy lifting and a / multiple frontends to be used with that (e.g: CLI[4], Web frontend[5], Flutter app[6]).
We're looking for contributors! If you hate Teams and want to improve an Open Source version, PRs are welcome (:
[1]: https://github.com/fossteams
[2]: https://github.com/fossteams/fossteams-backend
[3]: https://github.com/fossteams/teams-api
[4]: https://github.com/fossteams/teams-cli
> It seems to me that you are saying Microsoft should not be allowed to release their own version of Slack and Zoom for free.
That is exactly what I'm saying, because it is against EU competition law as Microsoft has a dominant position in the market -- the "plain English" guide to competition law simply states: [1]
If your company has a large market share, it holds a dominant position and must take particular care not to:
• charge unreasonably high prices which would exploit customers
• charge unrealistically low prices which may drive competitors out of the market
• discriminate between customers
• force certain trading conditions on your business partners
Microsoft does arguably all of these with different products to some level. Zoom, Slack, Discord etc are all paid-for products with a cost that, prior to February 2020, companies paid for separately. Microsoft then came along with Teams and released it as part of a certain tier of M365 subscription for free. Whilst Zoom and friends have not been driven out of the market, they have suffered as a result of it and what was a burgeoning industry, including with "freemium" or "paid support" FOSS models like Jitsi, have suffered as the corporate behemoths of the world use Teams. The real proof of the pudding is the fact that most users hate Teams: it's widely regarded as being not as good as its competitors and yet is massively used. Why? Monopolistic business practices.[1] https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/competit...
I understand where you (and the law) are coming from, but when it comes to software it is hard to say what are "unrealistically low prices". Slack and Zoom also have free tiers, so how is it unrealistic for Microsoft to offer that as well? Looking at Google for example, would you say that they should be forced to charge for their services to reflect their costs? I doubt that either of these would be a good thing.
So is it free or not? If it's part of a subscription, it's just included in the cost. The subscription already included a whole suite of different software, what makes Teams special in that regard? Who decides that Teams is a separate product and not just a feature of the O365 product?
I have built an alternative Teams client for smart glasses using only MS Graph and Azure Communication Services and it can already do most interactions related to chat/meetings/org etc.
This gives you a way to run an alternative client in corporations where you don't have the possibility to use third party apps. On top of that, since it's not using the Graph API, we might get better features that will take long time to be available in the Graph API.
Even if they try to stop you guys, they probably won't be able to pull it off unless they can manage it in court
For a new feature the hobby team can just hack away for a few nights, push the release and they are done.
The engineering org needs to plan and coordinate the feature across multiple teams (web app, desktop app, mobile app, Graph, teams admin panel, o365 admin panel,...) and then make sure it fits well into the rest of the MS infrastructure (policies, permission scopes, IT admin controls, licensing, auditing,...). Legal might need to be involved.
And then after aligning all those teams and waiting for each team to prioritize and do the work it needs to get into the MS roadmap as well going through the usual stages (private preview, public preview, General Availability). And once it hits GA it needs to be supported for many years.
If they still send a cease and desist letter, we'll probably comply and make sure the code is archived somewhere for people to continue / use the project (:
TL;DR: I would consider a cease and desist a success, and hope that Microsoft reuses the code
I used to work in a big corporate, suddenly all teams has to change to MS team even the current software works just fine. I just decided to quit.
Don't get me wrong, the Teams servers aren't the fastest out there - but processing a 50 MB JSON with Javascript (well, Angular) is probably not needed at all if your goal is just to see a chat message. We do that heavy lifting on the server side (that anyways runs locally on your PC), so that the client can get the messages without all of the mess.
So far I've been lucky that nothing surprising has been leaked to others or wound up in recordings, but this didn't used to happen.
I'd be happy if they improved the responsiveness. Say to the level of MSN Messenger 20 years ago, even though I'm running 2022 hardware.
I understand the online versions lack some features, but for my use-case they are great.
It's quite exciting that we're getting some proper applications of the technology that make sense. When the whole Crypto/Web3 boom was going on there was this constant question of "Yeah, but what actual use case are you solving". I think it's much easier to see an answer to that with ChatGPT style tech.
Because MS really needs to get their priorities straight. What good are AI meeting notes if the absolute basics of a VC/Chat software don't work properly? Just from the past few days, I've had
- Chat messages turning up hours later, or are not shown as new and I see them later by accident
- Images in chats are not loading
- In VC, I can't see people who have joined the meeting after me
- Status is stuck on "away" although I'm working with Teams
- Having to set up my audio/video setting for each new meeting again
Maybe fix these things first before working on AI meeting notes? But the fact is: many companies only use Teams because they have an Office365 subscription anyway and don't want to spend $$$ on an actually good VC/Chat solution. So yes, sorry, but it's really, really hard to get excited about AI meeting notes in Teams.
> It's quite exciting that we're getting some proper applications of the technology that make sense.
The technology already makes sense, in the form of ChatGPT. I use it every day.
For actually good, collaboration isn't limited to video chat. In particular, live collaboration on content is key. In an office, for office workers, turns out that's mostly Word, Excel ...
Devs don't realize this, because Git. But in office land, that was not really a solved problem. Places have nasty "Drive G" NAS solutions, with nasty permissioning management (or office gives up and gives everyone permission to everything).
Teams "Files" tab converges that, as does the Share icon, to where you're not "presenting your screen" to collaborate on the content, you can actually launch everyone's native PowerPoint or Word or Excel, see everyone's icon and cursor, and genuinely collaborate in real time on the content. Permissions are managed by Team and Channel, which make sense to everyone. Behind the scenes, all content access and permissions changes are fully audited, so the experience is fully compliant.
These things make it "actually good" for role based access to regulated compliant collaboration.
I feel targeted. Here is some detailed complaining about Teams and why I feel a bullshit "note taker" AI is not appropriate place to put development effort.
1. It really does crash my Google Chrome window every 45 minutes to two hours. This is literally the only application that does it, so it bears mentioning.
2. It gets 2FA and security wrong.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32337777
If you can't get 2FA correct, or enable your program to create inappropriate configurations that are going to screw up in a "serious business program", then yes, you have to fix the feature pipeline so that gets resolved first and that the process of deploying features incentivizes fixing these issues. Otherwise every new feature is just 10 new bugs.
3. It doesn't work well in languages that use IMEs
I can't tag people in chat rooms (due to it's failure to correctly search for Kanji names), and it hijacking my text input and wrecking the Japanese language input. Yes, being *unable to correctly input text* in a corporate chat application is far, far, far more important than this meaningless, worthless feature that will be used poorly 5% of the time and will be completely wrong in the language I am using anyways.
4. Note taking doesn't matter.
I can't believe that in 2023 people don't already get meeting bullet points before the meeting starts. We have our notes all on Azure Devops (which is, in comparison, tolerable)
"Nice for the note taker, awful for the productive worker" is a perfect description of Teams. This is not exciting in any way, I stand by my "generic bitching".
Video calls are used as a chance to talk candidly about management woes to colleagues. People talk much more freely on calls than they do in the messages of Slack or Teams.
Then auto-transcription hit, but I figured no one was going to read the thousands of lines of dialogue the org produces to mine for juicy tidbits.
Now, every meeting is automatically summarized by AI. I would not be surprised to see some 3rd party plug-in coming soon that flags to management when people express negative feelings, reveal secrets, or more on meetings.
Why have your your employees fill out some happiness Likert score when you can just do sentiment analysis on their voices? Passively determine who plans to leave, who leaked the report, and more.
Unfortunately, the only things I've seen are trivial and IMHO entirely unnecessary changes like "change the icons" or "add more useless whitespace", or something that was already widespread and possible decades ago like "now we have multiple windows". If that's what they thought were "features and improvements", it explains why Teams is still a sluggish pig that just barely works and feels repugnant to interact with.
It still greatly disappoints me that Microsoft of all companies can't write a decent native IM/AV client anymore. This AI stuff is not going to improve the basic experience either.
The only way around this is to have a random Microsoft Word window, paste the Teams message into Word, and then copy from Word into Visual Studio Code.
Aaargh Microsoft! A mindbogglingly dumb regression for a 5 year old product.
Notepad is better and starts faster. At least the Win10 version.
What makes you so sure? Microsoft already has a fully productized LLM that people pay for and has in turn provided real value to both users and the company (copilot). To assert that some other company has a better one but it's... not ready yet? is odd.
I can't think of the last time Google made a new product. New as in "not a reimplementation of what another company already productized", product as in "people pay for it". I don't think they have what it takes.
Edit: my bet is Google makes a free to play version that is ad supported, as they're want to do. The question is where do the ads go. The answer, most likely, is in the responses. So instead of reading the most likely continuation of a string, you get what the highest bidder wants the most likely continuation to be. Hooray.
I think Google has three choices: 1) reorient their business model to be about making money by providing direct value to the user, 2) pivot to be about ad-supported entertainment rather than productivity/information, or 3) cut costs, run as a cash cow, throw off as much profit as possible before obselesence.
And kill their golden goose? Google makes more money the longer you spend on their ad-ridden search result pages. I don't doubt they'll make a question answering bot, but the real question is how they fund it (see edit above for my guess).
But deploying something like that at scale not only means developing the consumer experience but also the ad placement platform that generates optimal revenue from it. It's not a thing to toss over the wall just because ChatGPT won some news cycles.
So why not keep people there by having an engaging chat bot? Could even refresh and add new context sensitive ads every time you ask something new.
Someone will kill their golden goose sooner or later. It's better if they kill it themselves and silently replace it with something else.
Although clicking on them might not be quite as natural as clicking as part of search results, so still massive damage to the golden goose.
Chat bots also can very naturally embed advertisement:
btw, I think you would really love to check this related product which according to many reviews can help with the problem you just asked me about.
OpenAI will have a secure home with Microsoft, but aren't positioned to run away with anything anytime soon. They're at least as likely to be the Altavista to Google Search, the Napster to Spotify, the MySpace to Facebook, etc
Until OpenAI is generating billions in profit, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize the other big companies. Google in particular has a reputation[0] to defend - they're not going to risk their cash cow with a half-cocked LLM that spouts patent falsehoods half the time. Not to mention the false economics of losing money on every single search.
[0] - the reputation might be sullied amongst the HN crowd, but they're negligible when it comes to dominance of Google as a search engine for normies.
They are trying it, here:
https://ai.facebook.com/blog/democratizing-access-to-large-s...
Demo:
But it's clearly not as good as GPT3.5
Example question: What’s a covariance matrix?
BlenderBot: Principal component analysis is a popular technique for analyzing large datasets containing a high number of dimensions/features per observation, increasing the interpretability of data while preserving the maximum amount of information, and enabling the visualization of multidimensional data.
ChatGPT: A covariance matrix is a symmetric matrix that describes the covariance between multiple variables in a given dataset. The diagonal elements of the matrix represent the variance of each variable, and the off-diagonal elements represent the covariance between each pair of variables. The covariance matrix is used in multivariate statistics to understand the relationships between different variables and to perform statistical inference and hypothesis testing.
Do these companies fear their customers that much? Maybe that's the difference between Microsoft/OpenAI and Facebook/Google. Microsoft sells the LLM to the customer who will be more impressed by the product if it's useful. With Facebook/Google the product uses the LLM. The LLM may make them an unsuitable product if they don't click on an ad after using it.
Also, I'm really wondering: How will ChatGPT deal with the typical banter that often happens in meetings? Will I get meeting notes about whether Messi or Ronaldo is the greater player? What about gossip that a human would never put in a meeting note? Will the department X be happy to read that they never get things done in time because person Y usually has a hangover on Mondays? The future will be exciting!
1. Receive business calls from anywhere and any handset or computer. Seamlessly transfer and pick up the call on any device. Can be linked to inbound 1800, 1300 numbers, landline numbers, etc.
2. Can do call forwarding, ring-out forwarding, and voice messages
3. Voice messages are recorded, transcripted and the audio file and text transcript emailed to you. In many cases you don't even need to listen to the audio
4. Users can have their own inbound phone numbers (!) and outbound phone numbers (!) and i.e. push these automatically into email signatures, all centrally managed from Microsoft 365 Admin
5. Teams Desk phones require just an ethernet connection to work, don't require any SIP HW or configuration, and can be hotdesked in a few seconds
But the real issue is that the commercialization of it was poor. Microsoft outsourced the phone switchboard part to third party providers/resellers of the Teams calling packs, and these are usually small to medium SMB that operate like used car salesman and have stupid pricing models, i.e. minimum 10 phone numbers or users (in Australia, anyway) or sell you like four differently named confusing calling packs and addons that nobody can understand.
In the case of Telstra, they wanted $5000 (!!) for a consultant to setup a $10/user/mo Teams calling plan and wouldn't let us take out an account without going through a setup consultant. Similarly, another big telco we talked to required a minimum order of around $200/mo. For goodness sake, it's a SaaS, you should be able to just go online and order it without talking to anyone. A novel product and great idea, with truly poor commercialization and ZERO regulation of their partner network and their allowed pricing models.
My team have an allocated Microsoft provided number which is allocated via the Teams admin centre which is easy to manage and we can just order more numbers if required.
These products form the Calling Pack (Microsoft) and the Voice Service (Telco) respectively, and then on top of that you need some kind of bridge (Telco) if you want to have a 13 or 18 number.
And if you want to have your outbound number recognisable as your inbound number, that’s another aspect of the Voice Service that needs to be configured.
Unfortunately the latter infrastructure doesn’t live at MS and it can be really unreliable if the telco hosting it is small. Our phone goes down for around an hour once a week or so.
If they can spend billions on AI maybe they can assign like ONE person to caring about Teams??
- MSN Messenger
- Windows Live Messenger
- Microsoft Office Communications
- Microsoft V-Chat
- Microsoft Lync
- Skype
- Skype for Business (nothing to do with Skype - completely different software)
- Microsoft Classroom
- Windows Meeting Space
- Microsoft NetMeeting
- Microsoft Office Live Meeting
etc.
Why would you expect Teams to fare differently?
I see what you mean though. I don't remember Teams ever being good.
It’s not even weird edge cases. The core features like calls just flat out don’t work in random ways.
As a daily user of teams it’s pretty obvious that the way teams is built is not informed by UX experts or user feedback, and mostly is focused on checking off as many boxes as possible to sell the product to C-level. It has a bewildering set of features, and they’re usually either kind of broken or kind of hard to use, or both.
But I have no doubt they’re eating slack’s lunch, for the same reason my employer switched from slack to teams: convenient licensing, bundling and deployment.
Then Microsoft foisted Teams on us and we had to waste time finding ways to disable it.
In the end, I’m not sure which I hate more. Slack is also a dog-slow JavaScript app, so at least in that sense, they are one as bad as the other.
There's been a recent update that managed to break the chat screen even more than before (when it was "only" slow).
Roughly half the time I start teams, the chat window will be empty. It's just gray. It doesn't look like it's loading with empty bubbles or similar, it just sits there doing nothing and being completely empty.
I can change contacts, the heading updates, but there just are no messages showing up. I can change tabs, like going to activity, calendar, or teams (where messages do show up), when I get back to the chats, no contents.
Of course, this being Microsoft, a restart seems to fix it right up.
Same thing with online payment systems - how is it that we didn't have that stuff completely solved like 20 years ago?
I mean I know the answer deep down but seriously - Some folks did solve it, a lot did not or don't want to. Can't keep a job on a complete software package.
Teams is not primarily a chat client, it's one of many front ends for Microsoft Office 365 (now M365). It's backed by SharePoint, you can share documents through Teams which are also available in Explorer through OneDrive, in the web through your Microsoft account login, on mobile through Microsoft apps, and you can edit them in the Office classic interface, in a web browser, or in the Teams interface, while other people are editing them.
Teams is backed by the Microsoft Graph which yes makes it so you can add chatbots to Teams channels, but also means you can add listeners and webhooks from events that happen in your company, e.g. when someone in Microsoft Planner makes a task it can update a Team channel, or when someone
Teams is a voice and video chat like Zoom but it's backed by the Active Directory permissions, and that means you can federate with other organisations and allow calls internal/outbound but only to linked organisations. It's tied to LinkedIn (which Microsoft own) for contact lookup and user directory seraching.
Teams is backed by Microsoft Azure features, even before this GPT announcement, for transcription and recording and upload.
Teams integrates with Office so that when your status changes, that shows up in Outlook for people trying to email you, or in Outlook you can make a 'new Teams meeting' from the same interface as making any other meeting, and Teams meetings show up on your calendar, but it's a calendar in M365 not on your desktop so you can go the other way and see your calendar in the Teams interface and join Teams calls from there.
From inside Teams' client, as well as searching chat history, the search finds people in your organisation and shows you organisation structure, who reports to whom.
Teams has a plugin architecture / app store inside it, for adding things like Wikipedia search.
Teams is scriptable through the same Azure / Graph API as all the other Microsoft Cloud systems, and manageable through the same web interface, with the ability to set permissions on which admin teams can enable/disable which Teams features.
And all of this has the UX that a company of non-tech people are used to - Microsoft Office, Windows - and that a large company with Microsoft offerings is already managing through web management.
Nobody is hooking Zoom up so that someone editing a spreadsheet in Excel on their desktop and someone editing a spreadsheet in Zoom chat are both collaboratively editing the same file at the same time live. Nobody is hooking IRC up so you can see sharepoint libraries in it. Is anybody hooking Slack up to be an app store that connects into your existing Microsoft ecosystem so departments can build workflows from PowerBI over SharePoint documents to Slack? So that the Microsoft Bing search that you get by default in Edge logged in with your company Microsoft account also searches your Slack chat history and surfaces results in the same window as the web results and search results for all other company documents you have permission to access?
Microsoft is building / has built the walled garden lockin of the next decade or more, and it's compelling despite parts of it being sub-par or having poor UX, because the user is the organization not the individual, and the benefit is more than the sum of its parts. The MS Office lockin is history, OpenOffice isn't even playing the same game.
Feels like Amazon took some inspiration from that.
The situation that is described in Manna is merely something that would occur under complete free market capitalism, and assumes that people would not change or adapt to meet the challenges of automation.
How is that different than a co-worker/manager/HR?
- Better UX. When working with Slack/Discord or any other of these apps. Going back to Teams is painful.
- That does not drain my Iphones battery as much as watching 4 hours on youtube.
All MSFT including Code would randomly crash because of the vpn...
They shall power Teams with some people to design an UI and fix the bugs. It is the worst piece of software i ever used.
Put it in Word, Outlook, PowerPoint, GitHub, generate Excel formulas, let me design power automate flows, or power query m stuff for powerbi, let me datamine the company SharePoint/OneDrive.
There are some startups working on these solutions too right?
I guess another footnote in the history books for Microsoft decimating a recently emerged biz niche.
[1] Airgram - https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/19/otter-ai-airgram-transcrib...
[2] OtterAI - https://venturebeat.com/business/otter-ai-raises-50-million-...
[3] Supernormal - https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/25/supernormal-raises-10m-to-...
There is some ML functionality built into Visual Studio now a days (intellisense + some auto complete). But I don't think they market it as a separate product.
> To impress your peers, and get a promotion, show that you care about the process, and sound smart, but without repeating what was said, you say:
Or even better... moderate people by cutting off their mic: "Please stay on topic", "Don't interrupt others", "Don't ignore other participants", "Please answer the question", etc.
An AI meeting moderator would make work so much better.
The status quo is a joke. The threshold for considering behavior toxic is too high.
Now we have the technology to end the bullshit.
If you are interrupting, ignoring others, bluffing, lying, manipulating, gaslighting, being a sycophant, playing dirty... you are no longer playing the game. There are ways of achieving things that do not involve cheating.
If you disagree, then I have to ask you: are you really being collaborative and inclusive, working for a common goal, or you are simply being selectively inclusive and collaborative up to the point it's time to sabotage others?
There are people out there that get ahead by being irrational, selfish and overall horrible. Let's get them out of the way and let the best ideas win.
Primitive animals are less social, less collaborative and cannot collaborate in large groups. There are vestigial behaviors from them that arise once in a while in humans. It's time to evolve and press the mute button on lower ape behavior. Humans cannot do it reliably.
Automatically detecting and flagging selfish individuals that cannot work in groups and actively sabotage their group by preventing the best ideas from prevailing is something worth trying.
The reason everyone is seeing therapists is because some people are determined to ruin the work experience for others. We can do better.
Same thing on muting mic or doing any kind of auto moderation.
That’s going very far on an imperfect technology. I’d sooner bet on autonomous driving than people using such a moderator.
We already employ profanity filters in multiplayer games. We also have rating systems in games that allow peers to flag toxic behavior after a game session for review. These have helped limiting the harm caused by toxic players.
Those are simple low tech solutions that could be added to videoconferencing applications.
Did someone act toxic during a meeting? Allow participants to report a toxic interaction, with an AI generated transcript + recording.
Then you can go one step further and build the future of HR playbook enforcement:
"Meeting participant #1234, you are engaging in toxic behavior and are in direct violation of the HR playbook page 113 section 9: please stop disrupting the meeting and shut the hell up to avoid disciplinary action. You have 10 seconds to comply. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...". /s
But jokes aside... Today we have great sentiment analysis capabilities. There is a subset of the English language you should never use at work. We can also detect if someone is yelling. We can flag highly offensive terms. There are ways in which we can apply technology in a sensible way to improve the work experience, to limit the harm caused by the worst types of behaviors including but not limited to violence.
We can also use technology to hold HR accountable to enforce the HR playbook.
But today? Wew
A reputation system with user submitted information can also help.
Then you would think 1000 times before saying anything that can get you marked for termination.
What's the point of E2EE if you can't be sure that the decrypting app isn't sending your data elsewhere?
- Is it still electron-based?
- Is the Linux version (assuming it even exists) still a 2nd class citizen?
That is a lot but MS Teams lacks one key feature that only Zoom/WebEx type tools have - the ability to pause the screen-sharing. It is strange that even Google meet doesn't have that feature.
Sharing pause is quite helpful when doing external meetings.