3 ms·
>There are many ways to monetize a chatbot, OpenAI for example is raking billions in subscription fees. Compared to Google, OpenAI's billions is peanuts, while
by nemothekid 3y ago
>There are many ways to monetize a chatbot, OpenAI for example is raking billions in subscription fees.
Compared to Google, OpenAI's billions is peanuts, while costing a fortune to generate. GPT-4 doesn't seem profitable (if it was, would they need to throttle it?)
- ro_sharp 3y ago> GPT-4 doesn't seem profitable (if it was, would they need to throttle it?) Maybe? Hardware supply isn’t perfectly elastic
- nequo 3y agoWouldn't Google be better able to integrate ads into a "ChatGoogle" service than OpenAI is into ChatGPT?
- exitheone 3y agoThe cost per ad is still astronomically different between search ads and LLMs
- varjag 3y agoThere could be an opposite avenue: ad-free Google Premium subscription with AI chat as a crown jewel. An ultimate opportunity to diversify from ad revenue.
- disgruntledphd2 3y agoThere's not enough money in it, as Google's scale. Especially because the people who'd pay for Premium tend to be the most prized people from an advertiser perspective. And most people won't pay, under any circumstances, but they will click on ads which make Google money.
- varjag 3y agoYouTube does it, at Google scale. And these same people do pay $20/mo for ChatGPT anyway.
- nemothekid 3y agoYouTube isn't comparable - YouTube revenue is roughly 30B/year, while Search revenue is roughly 175B/year. Advertisers are willing to pay far more than $20/mo per user, combined with the fact that search costs way less per query than inference.
- nequo 3y agoThe low operating margin of serving a GPT-4 scale model sounds like a compelling explanation for why Google stayed out of it. But then why did Microsoft put its money behind it? Alphabet's revenue is around $300bn, and Microsoft's is around $210bn which is lower but it is the same order of magnitude.