←back to thread

Google is winning on every AI front

(www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
993 points vinhnx | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source
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 #
og_kalu ◴[] No.43667759[source]
Open AI don't always have the best models (especially for programming) but they've consistently had the best product/user experience. And even in the model front, other companies seem to play catchup more than anything most of the time.
replies(1): >>43668677 #
int_19h ◴[] No.43668677[source]
The best user experience for what?

The most practical use case for generative AI today is coding assistants, and if you look at that market, the best offerings are third-party IDEs that build on top of models they don't own. E.g. Cursor + Gemini 2.5.

On the model front, it used to be the case that other companies were playing catch-up with OpenAI. I was one of the people consistently pointing out that "better than GPT o1" on a bunch of benchmarks does not reliably translate to actual improvements when you try to use them. But this is no longer the case, either - Gemini 2.5 is really that good, and Claude is also beating them in some real world scenarios.

replies(2): >>43668833 #>>43668884 #
1. bobxmax ◴[] No.43668884{3}[source]
so please enlighten us why OpenAI is doing so much better than Anthropic
replies(1): >>43670459 #
2. int_19h ◴[] No.43670459[source]
At this point it's pretty much entirely the first mover advantage.
replies(1): >>43671887 #
3. bobxmax ◴[] No.43671887[source]
I don't think you understand what first mover advantage is

In a world of zero switching costs, there is no such thing as first mover advantage

Especially when several companies like (A121 Labs and Cohere) appeared well before Anthropic and aren't anywhere close to Open AI