That's a "business" model, not a language model, which I believe is what the poster is referring to. In any case though, MS does have a number of models, most notably Phi. I don't think anyone is using them for significant work though.

▲

pixl97 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a word play, if their LLM model sucks too much they'll get someone else's.

I mean they fought the browser war for years, then just used Chrome.

▲

canucker2016 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Well, they fought hard until IE6.

Then they took their eyes off the ball - whether it was protecting the Windows fort (why create an app that has all the functionality of an OS that you give away for free - mostly on Windows, some Mac versions, but no Linux support) when people are paying for Windows OR they just diverted the IE devs to some other "hot" product, browser progress stagnated, even with XMLHttpRequest.

▲

torginus 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Which is kind of a bummer - it'd have helped the standards based web to have an actual powerful entity maintain a distinct implementation. Firefox is on life-support and is basically taking code from Blink wholesale, and Webkit isn't really interested in making a browser thats particularly compliant to web standards.

MS's calculus was obvious - why spend insane amounts of engineering effort to make a browser engine that nobody uses - which is too bad, because if I remember correctly they were not too far behind Chrome in either perf or compatibility for a while.

▲

Nevermark 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It would have helped the standards based web, if the standards based web wasn't a fermenting spaghetti monster.

	▲	torginus 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		From what I've heard a W3C standards meeting is basically a Zoom call between Blink and Webkit engineers.