341–350 of 777 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google’s moat: Try “@gmail” in Gemini Google’s surface area to apply AI is larger than any other company’s. And they have arguably the best multimodal model and indisputably the best flash model?
Also, Google doesn't have to finance Gemini using venture capital or debt, it can use its own money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we're curious what your source is
Monthly Visits (chatGPT #5, Gemini #26): https://www.similarweb.com/blog/research/market-research/mos... Search Traffic: https://x.com/Similarweb/status/2003078223135990246
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just try to compete with OpenAI, let's see you calculate the price of attempting it. Scale it to 300, 500, 800 million users. Apparently the DeepSeek folks managed that feat. Even with the high initial barriers to entry you're talking about, there will always be ways to compete by specializing in some underserved niche and growing from there. Competition seems to be alive and well.
DeepSeek certainly managed that on the training side but in terms of inference, the actual product was unusably slow and unreliable at launch and for several months after. I have not bothered revisiting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did their financing come from then?
They had a cash-cow called AWS to keep the retail business afloat
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,…
Google’s moat: Try “@gmail” in Gemini Google’s surface area to apply AI is larger than any other company’s. And they have arguably the best multimodal model and indisputably the best flash model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree, people love to talk about how hopelessly behind Apple is in terms of AI progress when they’re in a better position to compete directly against Nvidia on hardware than anyone else.
Apple's always had great potential. They've struggled to execute on it. But really, so has everyone else. There's two "races" for AI - creating models, and finding a consumer use case for them. Apple just isn't competing in creating models similar to the likes of OpenAI or Google. They also haven't really done much with using AI technology to deliver 'revolutionary' general purpose user-facing features using LLMs, bu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People seem to have the assumption that OpenAI and Anthropic dying would be synonymous with AI dying, and that's not the case. OpenAI and Anthropic spent a lot of capital on important research, and if the shareholders and equity markets cannot learn to value and respect that and instead let these companies die, new companies will be formed with the same tech, possibly by the same general group of people, thrive, and…
You weren’t around pre Google were you? The only thing Google learned from other search engines is what not to do - like rank based on the number of times a keyword appeared and not to use expensive bespoked servers
Ranking was Google's 5% contribution to it. They stood on the shoulders of people who invented physical server and datacenter infrastructure, Unix/Linux, file systems, databases, error correction, distributed computing, the entire internet infrastructure, modern Ethernet, all kinds of stuff.
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…
There is always a comment like this in these threads. It’s just 50-50 whether it’s Claude or OpenAI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mathematically impossible what OpenAI is promising. They know it. The goal is to be too big to fail and get bailed out by US taxpayers who have been groomed into viewing AI as a cold war style arms race that America cannot lose.
> The goal is to be too big to fail and get bailed out by US taxpayers I know this is the latest catastrophizion meme for AI companies, but what is it even supposed to mean? OpenAI failing wouldn’t mean AI disappears and all of their customers go bankrupt, too. It’s not like a bank. If OpenAI became insolvent or declared bankruptcy, their intellectual property wouldn’t disappear or become useless. Someone would purch…
Yes but with all stock growth being in AI companies it would tank the market for one. Secondly, all of those dollars they are using are backed by creditors who would have a default. short of another TARP (likely IMO, the US NEEDS to keep pumping AI to compete with China) .... it could scare investors off too..
Plus with the growth in AI effecting the overall makeup of the stockmarket, something like this hurts every Americans 401k