Few problems with this theory. 1.Competing purely on result quality with Google is like competing with Coke based purely on having a subjectively better tastin

Few problems with this theory. 1.Competing purely on result quality with Google is like competing with Coke based purely on having a subjectively better tasting formula. If it really was better at search than Google (and scaled, was economical, etc.) it would have to be VASTLY better to get people to switch. Google has the brand, the defaults, the ecosystems, decades of habit forming, etc. It would not be enough to just be "better". Traditional wisdom would say it would have to be 10x better (the idea of quantifying a subjective improvement like this is absurd ofc.) 2. AGI aspires to be human-like. I don't see a human like intelligence as anywhere near Google's level for search results. A traditional vision of an AGI would be like asking your clever mate. Useful, but not for search. 3. Even if something came along which was truly better enough, Google themselves would have to not have access to it/something comparable. You would need to somehow have a lasting, huge & exclusive advantage. 4. Even if there was something that was a clear 10x improvement on Google, which had novel tech which Google could not themselves replicate, then Google would simply acquire them. Almost everything Google has done since the original site has been acquiring a tech, applying operational expertise, network effects, etc. & acting as essentially a distributor.