231–240 of 777 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will add that there's also Gemini in Chrome. With Chrome being the largest browser by market share, that's a powerful de facto default.
> With Chrome being the largest browser by market share, that's a powerful de facto default. where art thou anti-trust enforcement...
AI is going to be a highly-competitive, extremely capital-intensive commodity market that ends up in a race to the bottom competing on cost and efficiency of delivering models that have all reached the same asymptotic performance in the sense of intelligence, reasoning, etc. The simple evidence for this is that everyone who has invested the same resources in AI has produced roughly the same result. OpenAI, Anthropic,…
> There's no evidence of a technological moat or a competitive advantage in any of these companies. I disagree based on personal experience. OpenAI is a step above in usefulness. Codex and GPT 5.2 Pro have no peers right now. I'm happy to pay them $200/month. I don't use my Google Pro subscription much. Gemini 3.0 Pro spends 1/10th of the time thinking compared to GPT 5.2 Thinking and outputs a worse answer or ignore…
But Gemini will put me in my place. Sometimes I ask my question to Gemini because I don’t trust ChatGPT’s affirmations.
Truthfully I just use both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value of YouTube for AI isn't making AI videos, it's that it's an incredibly rich source for humanity's current knowledge in one place. All of the tutorials, lectures, news reports, etc. are great for training models.
Is that actually a moat? Seems like all model providers managed to scrape the entire textual internet just fine. If video is the next big thing I don’t see why they won’t scrape that too.
Reminds me of Reddit's cracking down on API access after realizing that their data was useful. But I'd expect both youtube to be quicker on the gun knowing about AI data collection, and have more time because of the orders of magnitude greater bandwidth required to scrape video.
Not sure why they put so much investment into videoSlop and imageSlop. Anthropic seems to be more focused at least.
Because OpenAI stands for AI leader. If Gemini can create or edit an image, chatgpt needs to be able to do this too. Who wants to copy&paste prompts between ai agents? Also if you want to have more semantics, you add image, video and audio to your model. It gets smarter because of it. OpenAI is also relevant bigger than antropic and is known as a generic 'helper'. Antropic probably saw the benefits of being more focu…
It'll just end up spreading itself too thin and be second or third best at everything.
The 500lb gorilla in the room is Google. They have endless money and maybe even more importantly they have endless hardware. OpenAI are going to have an increasingly hard time competing with them.
That Gemini 3 is crushing it right now isn't the problem. It's Gemini 4 or 5 that will likely leave them in the dust for the general use case, meanwhile specialist models will eat what remains of their lunch.
For what I use them for, the LLM market has become a two player game, and the players are Anthropic and Google. So I find it quite interesting that OpenAI is still the default assumption of the leader.
2008: US Banks pump stocks -> market correction -> taxpayer bailout 2026: US AI companies pump stocks -> market correction -> taxpayer bailout Mark my words. OpenAI will be bailed out by US taxpayers.
I'll take that bet. Banks get bailed out because if confidence in the banking system disappears and everyone tries to withdraw their money at once, the whole economy seizes up. And whoever is Treasury Secretary (usually an ex Wall Street person) is happy to do it. I don't see OpenAI having the same argument about systemic risk or the same deep ties into government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"AI is going to be a highly-competitive" - In what way? It is not a railroad and the railroads did not explode in a bubble (OK a few early engines did explode but that is engineering). I think LLM driven investments in massive DCs is ill advised.
Yes they did, at least twice in the 19th century. It was the largest financial crisis before 1929
AI feels like a solution looking for a problem. Especially with 90% of consumer facing products. Were people asking for better chatbots, or to quickly deepfake some video scene? I think the bubble popping will re-reveal some incredible backend tools in tech, medical, and (eventually) robotics. But I don't think this is otherwise solving the problems they marketed on.
AI is going to be a highly-competitive, extremely capital-intensive commodity market that ends up in a race to the bottom competing on cost and efficiency of delivering models that have all reached the same asymptotic performance in the sense of intelligence, reasoning, etc. The simple evidence for this is that everyone who has invested the same resources in AI has produced roughly the same result. OpenAI, Anthropic,…
> There's no evidence of a technological moat or a competitive advantage in any of these companies. I disagree based on personal experience. OpenAI is a step above in usefulness. Codex and GPT 5.2 Pro have no peers right now. I'm happy to pay them $200/month. I don't use my Google Pro subscription much. Gemini 3.0 Pro spends 1/10th of the time thinking compared to GPT 5.2 Thinking and outputs a worse answer or ignore…
I find codex & 5.2 Pro next to useless and nothing holds a candle to Opus 4.5 in terms of utility or quality.
There's probably something in how varied human brains and thought processes are. You and I likely think through problems in some fundamentally different way that leads to us favouring different models that more closely align with ourselves.
No one seems to ever talk about that though and instead we get these black and white statements about how our personally preferred model is the only obvious choice and company XYZ is clearly superior to all the competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no evidence of a technological moat or a competitive advantage in any of these companies. I disagree based on personal experience. OpenAI is a step above in usefulness. Codex and GPT 5.2 Pro have no peers right now. I'm happy to pay them $200/month. I don't use my Google Pro subscription much. Gemini 3.0 Pro spends 1/10th of the time thinking compared to GPT 5.2 Thinking and outputs a worse answer or ignore…
I use both and ChatGPT will absolutely glaze me. I will intentionally say some BS and ChatGPT will say “you’re so right.” It will hilariously try to make me feel good. But Gemini will put me in my place. Sometimes I ask my question to Gemini because I don’t trust ChatGPT’s affirmations. Truthfully I just use both.
1. Glazes me 2. Lists a variety of assumptions (some can be useful / interesting)
Answers the question
At least this way I don't spend a day pursuing an idea the wrong way because ChatGPT never pointed out something obvious.
AI is going to be a highly-competitive, extremely capital-intensive commodity market that ends up in a race to the bottom competing on cost and efficiency of delivering models that have all reached the same asymptotic performance in the sense of intelligence, reasoning, etc. The simple evidence for this is that everyone who has invested the same resources in AI has produced roughly the same result. OpenAI, Anthropic,…