3 ms·

YouTube's network effect creating a winner-take-most was recognized, pitched, and valued from the very start. The capabilities of LLMs are impressive, but none

YouTube's network effect creating a winner-take-most was recognized, pitched, and valued from the very start. The capabilities of LLMs are impressive, but none of them have published an idea I consider to have the same potential for a trillion $ monopoly that the current hype looks like. There are far more similarities with the dot-com hype. No critical first mover advantage in sight. All parts are replaceable for the cheapest variant with little to no down side to users.

Gothmog69 2y ago
They bought youtube for 1.65 billion which is pennies on the dollar compared to what it is worth today.
- latexr 2y ago
  Technically true, though in fairness it is unlikely the original owners would have gotten YouTube to where it is today. On the other hand there are companies who didn’t recognise they were nothing more than passing fads, refused buyouts, and crumbled.
bloomingkales 2y ago
[flagged]
- athrowaway3z 2y ago
  You could have asked any one of the dozen available LLMs to review this comment. Most of them would have responded by explaining what a monopoly is, and why this reply makes little sense.
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    [flagged]
mike_hearn 2y ago
It wasn't obvious at the time YouTube would have a network effect though. It was very dependent on coming up with a great recommendation algorithm, along with monetization and revenue sharing. At the time, YouTube didn't have anything like that, iirc.
- athrowaway3z 2y ago
  Even the basic front page of youtube was of immediate and obvious value to a creator, and would increase disproportionately in value the more people were on YouTube. The same goes for Amazon, and the same goes for Facebook. All the LLM providers are - extremely useful - tools. Currently I can only see the 'non-monopoly' proportional improvement when their userbase grows from 100 to 1000. But I might be wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if in hindsight it will be obvious what the real disproportionate advantages there were to be found.

Gothmog69 2y ago

They bought youtube for 1.65 billion which is pennies on the dollar compared to what it is worth today.

latexr 2y ago
Technically true, though in fairness it is unlikely the original owners would have gotten YouTube to where it is today. On the other hand there are companies who didn’t recognise they were nothing more than passing fads, refused buyouts, and crumbled.

bloomingkales 2y ago

[flagged]

athrowaway3z 2y ago
You could have asked any one of the dozen available LLMs to review this comment. Most of them would have responded by explaining what a monopoly is, and why this reply makes little sense.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  [flagged]

mike_hearn 2y ago

It wasn't obvious at the time YouTube would have a network effect though. It was very dependent on coming up with a great recommendation algorithm, along with monetization and revenue sharing. At the time, YouTube didn't have anything like that, iirc.

athrowaway3z 2y ago
Even the basic front page of youtube was of immediate and obvious value to a creator, and would increase disproportionately in value the more people were on YouTube. The same goes for Amazon, and the same goes for Facebook. All the LLM providers are - extremely useful - tools. Currently I can only see the 'non-monopoly' proportional improvement when their userbase grows from 100 to 1000. But I might be wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if in hindsight it will be obvious what the real disproportionate advantages there were to be found.