231–240 of 693 posts
> There is no equivalent of the network effects seen at everything from Windows to Google Search to iOS to Instagram, where market share was self-reinforcing and no amount of money and effort was enough for someone else to to break in or catch up. What is the network effect of Google Search?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would literally take you 5 mins to set up your wife with a competing client for her needs. Sure it's 'sticky' at least a little, but it's not a moat. A moat is a show stopper like they own you.
Just like it would take 10 seconds to buy her a Pepsi instead of her preferred Coke. Would you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not necessarily, if openai managed to monetize free users. Could be through advertising, or integrations with marketplaces on commission (e.g. order your next Hello Fresh through ChatGPT? Get recommended a hotel?) They could succeed where Alexa failed. A free user can even bring in more than a paid user if you look at some platforms like spotify, where apparently there is a large chunk of free users generating more i…
We are so far away from ordering stuff from LLM
I was researching CAVA ( due to the crazy earnigs announcement yesterday ) and it was displaying some nice links to the website, all suffixed with ?utm=chatgpt
So, it has begun!
Everyone is actually underestimating stickiness. The near billion users OpenAI has is actually a real moat and might translate into decent chunk of revenue. My wife, for example, uses ChatGPT on a daily basis, but has found no reason to try anything else. There are no network effects for sure, but people have hundreds and thousands on conversation on these apps that can't be easily moved elsewhere. Understandable tha…
Take ozempic as an example. The word is already part of the culture, but the company is losing badly to lly. Novo nordisk is projecting revenue DECLINE while eli lilly is still growing massively. I am not even sure people know other glp1 drugs other than ozempic. I don't even remember lilly drugs name.
I think people should not underestimate the market. It's a dynamic game where engineering intuition might not be enough
This matters a lot to me, as I use AI as something of an ongoing project organizer, and not purely for specific prompts.
So at least for me, it would be a huge hassle to move to another platform, on par with moving from one note-taking software to another (e.g., Evernote to IA Writer.)
I just wonder how long it'll take local models to be good enough for 99% of use cases. It seems like it has to happen sooner or later. My hunch is that in five years we'll look back and see current OpenAI as something like a 1970's VAX system. Once PCs could do most of what they could, nobody wanted a VAX anymore. I have a hard time imagining that all the big players today will survive that shift. (And if that partic…
I hope you're right, but is there any guarantee that there will continue to be institutions willing to spend the money to produce open models? I almost wonder if we need some sort of co-op for training and another for hosted inference
Given that a lot of the R&D in China is state sponsored that also seems to be a good pawn in US-China relations.
Everyone is actually underestimating stickiness. The near billion users OpenAI has is actually a real moat and might translate into decent chunk of revenue. My wife, for example, uses ChatGPT on a daily basis, but has found no reason to try anything else. There are no network effects for sure, but people have hundreds and thousands on conversation on these apps that can't be easily moved elsewhere. Understandable tha…
> but people have hundreds and thousands on conversation on these apps that can't be easily moved elsewhere. Except these aren't conversations in the traditional sense. Yes, there's the history of prompts and responses exchanged. But the threads don't build on each other - there's no cross-conversational memory, such as you'd have in a human relationship. Even within a conversation it's mostly stateless, sending the…
This would feel like a switching cost for people who use the system that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still think it's hilarious that a product name as awful as "ChatGPT" has become so ubiquitous. I wonder what percentage of its users know what the GPT stands for, or even thought about it for a second?
I mean, how is it any worse than 'google'? chatgpt is generic (as in, no prior meaning attached, except for the few people in the world who understand what GPT stands for). It's simple - even a non-english speaker can say it easily, and doesn't require one to be native to know how to pronounce it (this is a difficult concept for a native english speaker to grok). These features makes for a good name.
Everyone is actually underestimating stickiness. The near billion users OpenAI has is actually a real moat and might translate into decent chunk of revenue. My wife, for example, uses ChatGPT on a daily basis, but has found no reason to try anything else. There are no network effects for sure, but people have hundreds and thousands on conversation on these apps that can't be easily moved elsewhere. Understandable tha…
> but people have hundreds and thousands on conversation on these apps that can't be easily moved elsewhere. Except these aren't conversations in the traditional sense. Yes, there's the history of prompts and responses exchanged. But the threads don't build on each other - there's no cross-conversational memory, such as you'd have in a human relationship. Even within a conversation it's mostly stateless, sending the…
I use OpenAI a lot on the paid plan via the UI. It now knows absolutely loads about me and seems to have a massive amount of cross conversational memory. It's really getting very close to what you'd expect from a human conversation in this regard.
Sure the model itself is still stateless, and if you use the API then what you say is true.
But they are doing so much unseen summarisation and longer context building behind the scenes in the webapp, what you see in the current conversation history is just a fraction of what is getting sent to the model.