OpenAI Acquires Multi
multi.app
multi.app
I presume that Multi actually did something useful, perhaps some sort of virtualization. But this description doesn't tell me anything useful about the company, nor does it even make sense. Is a desktop computer a video game? Why would it "play" let alone be multiplayer? Why would the OS be on equal footing to the apps? It doesn't make sense let alone be useful.
It's probably every industry that has this sort of nonsense.
Collaborative is a very overloaded term, it's everything from Git to Google Docs to screen sharing to multiple people accessing one app at the same time via remote access. Multiplayer is a term that usually refers to a very specific mode of collaboration, where multiple people can work on one project, on their own computers, with their own cursors, at the same time, with all changes instantly synchronized between participants.
Google Docs is both collaborative and multiplayer. Git is definitely collaborative, but not multiplayer, same goes for sending patches over mailing lists..
Google docs is a realtime collaborative word processor. Git is a collaborative source control system. If you told me that Multi is a realtime collaborative editor then I'd instantly understand. But trying to say that my OS needs to be multiplayer is just confusing buzzword bingo.
Guess I’ll be trying Tuple.app next
If you grant it this control, you stand to lose any shred of privacy you have left, and become a complete slave to them. This is different from using assistants with granular access to data. It also is different from running your own private AI.
A lot of actions are still not supported remotely, syntax doesn't get reinterpreted properly unless you do manual workarounds like switching between files, etc. It's getting better and better, though.
I totally understand free users getting a shorter notice period, but there's almost no instance where a paid user should get <60 days notice before being forced to migrate off a product they're using.
This sort of thing leads to a lot of mistrust in trying / using a startup for anything remotely important.
To power that experience, an app will need to feel "multiplayer" like someone else is working with you. They'll probably bundle this in the API and have "agent mode" that developers can embed in any app or website, or just let consumers give OAI access to control their desktop. It'll also likely work async, so you can assign tasks, walk away or go to sleep for a few hours, and see the results.
This is speculation. But it feels like the interface that we'll look back on in ten years and say "that seemed obvious in hindsight."
The thing that is hard to achieve is not to get your LLM to operate your computer but to make it do the right thing. And by right thing I mean, the thing you expect it to do in the way you want. Example I always show to people when I give a demo of what I built: Say you want to buy a new Macbook. If you ask the computer to buy you one, it might:
A) Go to Google and search for a Macbook B) Go to Apple and search for a Macbook C) Go to Amazon and search for a Macbook
Now, depending on your implementation it might then ask you to give you more details about the Macbook you need (pro? air? how big?)
The tough part is to wrap all this together in a way that doesn't frustrate the user. In a way it's like when you do a Google search: the first result is the best guess of what you want. But how likely is it that it's not? Pretty much 50% of the time you look at the top 2-3 results right? Well it's the same with having the AI control your computer, at this point in time, you want to have "multiple sessions" - sort of like a parallel universe where the AI has done 2-3 things and lets you pick from A, B ... or C and then go from there.
Another approach would be to collate a library of most used "prompts" - i.e. if you are trying to buy a laptop and someone else managed to get the AI to go through a very thorough process where you're asked all the important details that lead to purchasing the Macbook, then you should be able to re-use that one workflow from the library, rather than have the AI start from scratch.
Anyway, it's very very tough - more so from a UX experience rather than an AI perspective.
Is this like EA where they have to make a trillion dollars first before getting to the actual mission?
The key must be somewhere in the statement "we’ve been increasingly asking ourselves how we should work with computers. Not on or using computers, but truly with computers."
I wish I had some experience using Multi so I could picture this better. But is there a chance this is for a sandboxed execution environment that would allow models to interact with software alongside a human counterpart?
It’s Remote Desktop, but allows more than one participant to connect at once.
Still waiting for the "PhD level" Q*.
Totally unprofessional.
I'm rather surprised that Keybase is still running after the team joined Zoom.
What an incredible journey.
Feels like if running Keybase was already financially viable at that time they won't join Zoom.
See MailChimp "We'll never sell! Corporate culture, etc etc." to "We're excited to be joining the innovative Intuit family."
Granted, it took them decades, but there is always a number someone won't say "No" to.
I remember during the Sam firing saga 90% of OpenAI employees signed a letter declaring they are considering moving to Microsoft with their current compensation package.
It shows how much the "open" part matters for the team. Risking AGI being concentrated in the hands of a large company? No problem. And they have the guts to lobby government to restrict open models.
I have criticisms of OpenAI, but on the whole I really hope this doesn't mean they are losing the war and turning to diversification and other classic "big tech" moves. GPT still is (IME) the best at not assuming/inferring things in the prompt that aren't there (especially then mangling the prompt *cough* Gemini *cough*). For those of us who try to be very precise with our prompts, that is a big deal.
What is it with OpenAI acquisitions reaming their user bases on short notice?
Is OpenAI already locked in such a dominant position that they don't have to pretend to care what anyone in industry thinks about them?
Everyone savvy knows that Microsoft and Oracle don't care, and are just waiting until they can stab you again. Even Google, who routinely pulls the rug out from under its customers, is gentler about it. Even the usual serial-founder brogrammer startups often have a semi-reasonable migration.
Sustaining engineering for legacy customers doesn't have to be expensive, and you can think of it as an obligation to pay back for your success, and maybe a foot in the door for sales.
Continuation of the existing product isn't usually of concern in these cases, and appears to be very common practice even for companies that are otherwise well known for almost never deprecating their products (e.g. various AWS acquisitions.)
The Rockset one is fucked up. It's a central part of some companies infra[0].
Consequently, actually running, growing a business, and making your users happy becomes a more reliable path to wealth.
Unlike today.
The actual company is the founders and associates (early employees, investors, etc.). The product being sold is the company. Larger companies who might wish to buy it are the true customers. Later employees, "products" and "services", "customers", all that nonsense - marketing materials.
Seems a little abrupt.
OpenAI on an M&A spree.
Interesting.