←back to thread

Google is winning on every AI front

(www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
993 points vinhnx | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.023s | source | bottom
Show context
codelord ◴[] No.43661966[source]
As an Ex-OpenAI employee I agree with this. Most of the top ML talent at OpenAI already have left to either do their own thing or join other startups. A few are still there but I doubt if they'll be around in a year. The main successful product from OpenAI is the ChatGPT app, but there's a limit on how much you can charge people for subscription fees. I think soon people expect this service to be provided for free and ads would become the main option to make money out of chatbots. The whole time that I was at OpenAI until now GOOG has been the only individual stock that I've been holding. Despite the threat to their search business I think they'll bounce back because they have a lot of cards to play. OpenAI is an annoyance for Google, because they are willing to burn money to get users. Google can't as easily burn money, since they already have billions of users, but also they are a public company and have to answer to investors. But I doubt if OpenAI investors would sign up to give more money to be burned in a year. Google just needs to ease off on the red tape and make their innovations available to users as fast as they can. (And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.)
replies(23): >>43661983 #>>43662449 #>>43662490 #>>43662564 #>>43662766 #>>43662930 #>>43662996 #>>43663473 #>>43663586 #>>43663639 #>>43663820 #>>43663824 #>>43664107 #>>43664364 #>>43664519 #>>43664803 #>>43665217 #>>43665577 #>>43667759 #>>43667990 #>>43668759 #>>43669034 #>>43670290 #
netcan ◴[] No.43662766[source]
> there's a limit on how much you can charge people for subscription fees. I think soon people expect this service to be provided for free and ads would become the main option to make money out of chatbots.

So... I don't think this is certain. A surprising number of people pay for the ChatGPT app and/or competitors. It's be a >$10bn business already. Could maybe be a >$100bn business long term.

Meanwhile... making money from online ads isn't trivial. When the advertising model works well (eg search/adwords), it is a money faucet. But... it can be very hard to get that money faucet going. No guarantees that Google discover a meaningful business model here... and the innovators' dilema is strong.

Also, Google don't have a great history of getting new businesses up and running regardless of tech chops and timing. Google were pioneers to cloud computing... but amazon and MSFT built better businesses.

At this point, everyone is assuming AI will resolve to a "winner-take-most" game that is all about network effect, scale, barriers to entry and such. Maybe it isn't. Or... maybe LLMs themselves are commodities like ISPs.

The actual business models, at this point, aren't even known.

replies(16): >>43662990 #>>43663168 #>>43663741 #>>43663811 #>>43664067 #>>43664234 #>>43664525 #>>43664955 #>>43665493 #>>43665708 #>>43666247 #>>43666842 #>>43668003 #>>43668707 #>>43670096 #>>43670179 #
ximeng ◴[] No.43663811[source]
Google aren’t interested in <1bn USD businesses, so it’s hard for them to build anything new as it’s pretty guaranteed to be smaller than that at first. The business equivalent of the danger of a comfortable salaried job.
replies(2): >>43664064 #>>43666707 #
1. fernandopj ◴[] No.43664064[source]
Google is very good at recognizing existential threats. iOS were that to them and they built Android, including hardware, a novelty for them, even faster than mobile incumbents at the time.

They're more than willing to expand their moat around AI even if that means multiple unprofitable business for years.

replies(2): >>43664576 #>>43665035 #
2. discordance ◴[] No.43664576[source]
* acquired Android
replies(1): >>43664910 #
3. addicted ◴[] No.43664910[source]
They acquired the Android company years before the iPhone existed.

It was supposed to be a BlackBerry/Blackjack killer at the time.

And then the iPhone was revealed and Google immediately changed Android’s direction to become a touch OS.

4. bbarnett ◴[] No.43665035[source]
In tech, Android's acquisition by Google is ancient history. It has zero relevance to today's Google.

When was it, 2006? Almost 20 years ago, back when the company was young.

replies(1): >>43667480 #
5. runjake ◴[] No.43667480[source]
Mobile is still nearly everything. Google continues to develop and improve Android in substantial ways. Android is also counted on by numerous third-party OEMs.

This doesn’t strike me as zero relevance.

replies(1): >>43668315 #
6. bbarnett ◴[] No.43668315{3}[source]
This thread was about new markets, having foresight, being able to build "new".

Android and mobile are none of these things.