291–300 of 476 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google built ten different chat products, how did that go?
Does it matter? Microsoft won by default with Teams because it actually turns out no one cares about chat or even has a choice in it: employees use whatever the company picks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm trying paid tier Gemini and it doesn't allow to keep have personal chat history when you disable training on your data, on reload of the page your chat is gone. Even free tier of ChatGPT allows disabling training on your data while allowing to keep such basic functionality. Some technical advancements are not worth it if you do not respect your users.
How does their top tier subscription compare in usage limits to the $200/mo Claude usage limits?
Goldman Sachs recently stoked fear about software stocks due to claimed AI competition. What if their strategy is this: slowly drive down software stocks, keep talking about AI, buy the downward market. Then cash in on the IPOs of OpenAI and Anthropic. Then let OpenAI and Anthropic implode. Goldman Sachs had no problems underwriting webvan at the end of 1999, which then imploded in 2000. Anyway, I just valued my dog…
Matt Levine has put this forward in his newsletter - if you're moderately influential you can go on TV and tell people that "X industry will be dead in 10 years" because of AI and then profit from the inevitable stock dip. Because we live in the worst possible timeline the end result for AI companies does seem to be "too big to fail", where these massive investments will get foisted on working class people via a bail…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, it's basically existential, so the incentive is there to not only get it very right but also to limit the delta with how right anyone else gets it. The same can't really be said of the long tail of products Google have done. Look to GCP as an example. It had to be done, with similar competitive dynamics, it was done very well. Look to Android as another.
You must not know the stories of why GCP came to be. It was an idea from the creators of Kubernetes and the execs at Google fought it the whole way
I think it's a slightly different point though. What I'm saying isn't about where the idea came from or whether it was part of some precient top down bet / strategy from the very beginning.
It's more where did the strategy evolve to (and why) and did they mess it up. GCP and Android are good examples of where it at a minimum became obvious over time that these were massively important if not existential projects and Google executed incredibly well.
My point is just that there's therefore good reason to expect the same of LLMs. After all the origin story of the strategy there has a similar twist. Famously Google had been significantly involved in early LLM/transformer research, not done much with the tech, faltered as they started to integrate it, course corrected, and as of now have ended up in a very strong position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, it has to do with how they're classified under Delaware law as a corporate entity. I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV, damn you Odenkirk) so I can't tell you what that means as far as case law for companies getting punished for behaving badly, but in this case, there is supposedly some sort of legal backing for the classification.
Laws are words with zero meaning if they go unenforced. Politicians are not interested in assuring such. Public is busy arguing semantics online; they are not interested in assuring such.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How in the world would you have thought that? Genuinely curious. It was obviously DOA and waaaayyy outside G'scompetence.
Google+ had an exclusive club appeal at launch because it wasn't instantly globally accessible, but slowly opened up instead. It became clear they where desperate about user numbers when thay forced the merge of Youtube accounts. Or something like that.
Anthropic is the clear category leader in enterprise AI Citation needed.
Microsoft engineers use their offerings over OpenAI - their partner. That isn’t nothing.
Other companies have a similar top-down "use Claude" mandate as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How in the world would you have thought that? Genuinely curious. It was obviously DOA and waaaayyy outside G'scompetence.
So is Gemini tbh. It's the only agent I've used that gets itself stuck in ridiculous loops repeating "ok. I'm done. I'm ready to commit the changes. There are no bugs. I'm done." Google somehow manages to fumble the easiest layups. I think Anthropic et al have a real chance here.
Makes CoPilot look like something from a Sci-Fi movie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How in the world would you have thought that? Genuinely curious. It was obviously DOA and waaaayyy outside G'scompetence.
So is Gemini tbh. It's the only agent I've used that gets itself stuck in ridiculous loops repeating "ok. I'm done. I'm ready to commit the changes. There are no bugs. I'm done." Google somehow manages to fumble the easiest layups. I think Anthropic et al have a real chance here.
380? Weren’t they talking numbers like 500B? Isn’t this a bad sign?
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/02/openai-share-sale-500-billio...