4 ms·

Tech people and their friends are like 1% of the population. Go out on the the street of Anytown in any western country, and people know "ChatGPT". A friend o

Tech people and their friends are like 1% of the population. Go out on the the street of Anytown in any western country, and people know "ChatGPT". A friend of mine is a teacher, and told me that at a recent school board meeting there was discussion about implementing AI into the learning curriculum. And to the board, "AI" and "ChatGPT" were used interchangeably. There was no discussion of other providers or models, because "AI" is "ChatGPT". That's why OpenAI has these huge projections. When average people are asked to reach for AI, they reach for ChatGPT.

v5v3 1y ago
More than just tech people on X and they all know Grok. I imagine Meta users know Llama too?
- christianqchung 1y ago
  Facebook users do not know Llama anywhere near the degree the X network does Grok, and both are pallid in comparison to Chatgpt.
kgwgk 1y ago
They may be satisfied with anyone’s “ChatGPT” though.
kubectl_h 1y ago
Exactly, it's hard to dismiss the broad penetration of ChatGPT in the general population. I was an AI skeptic/luddite until almost exactly a year ago when, in a span of a month or so, I had three different friends/family members who work in various administrative jobs tell me that they all used ChatGPT surreptitiously at work to get things done. Now a year later I don't know many people that don't use it at least occasionally. The ones that don't are older and I'm confident eventually they'll be using it like crazy to annoy me.
xnx 1y ago
> because "AI" is "ChatGPT". People still call it "Kleenex" when they're using any old facial tissue. They may still call it "ChatGPT" when it's coming from Google.
kibwen 1y ago
> When average people are asked to reach for AI, they reach for ChatGPT. No, average people are nowhere near that tech-savvy. Just because every mom in the 90s called every video game console a "Nintendo" did not mean that Sony didn't mop the floor with Nintendo in that era. This isn't brand loyalty, it's brand genericity. Other than, say, Replika-style users who have formed an emotional bond with a certain style of chatbot, no average joe on the planet gives a damn whether the LLM powering their chat is provided by OpenAI or Google or etc. They'll use whatever's in front of them and most convenient, and unlike Google, Apple, or Microsoft, OpenAI doesn't own the platform that establishes the crucial defaults that nearly no user ever changes.
- famouswaffles 1y ago
  Except Open AI happen to be the Sony in this case. 700M Weekly active users and the 5th most visited site on the planet, with no-one else close. I mean, it's pretty clear this is less 'Nintendo' and more 'Google'.
  - ath3nd 1y ago
    If Google was massively unprofitable and with no profitability path in sight, yeah, that's very much Google.
    - famouswaffles 1y ago
      Google was unprofitable for some time yes. I don't understand the obsession with the 'no profitability path in sight'. It's nonsensical. Their reported loss numbers are really low for a service with that many users. Open AI don't have to do a lot to be profitable, ads would be enough.
      - ath3nd 1y ago
        > Open AI don't have to do a lot to be profitable, ads would be enough. Yeah man, absolutely! Ads can pay for all of it! > It's nonsensical Yep, wanting a business to be profitable before investing in it, or at least to show that it could be profitable by providing a plan and timeline to profitability, is too much to ask for nowadays. Of course companies can be successful and great without any clear path to profitability, hype and enthusiasm are enough, just look at the great success of WeWork and Adam Neumann! Who are we to doubt that? Just keep repeatedly giving couple of trillions to Sama and all will be okay, AGI is just behind the corner, trust him bro.
piqufoh 1y ago
Anecdotally, "skype" was once synonymous with video calls but it's pretty much never used now.
- thijsvandien 1y ago
  It's literally never used now, because it was taken offline earlier this year.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    And before that it was essentially irrelevant and on life support for what, maybe a decade?

v5v3 1y ago

More than just tech people on X and they all know Grok. I imagine Meta users know Llama too?

christianqchung 1y ago
Facebook users do not know Llama anywhere near the degree the X network does Grok, and both are pallid in comparison to Chatgpt.

kgwgk 1y ago

They may be satisfied with anyone’s “ChatGPT” though.

kubectl_h 1y ago

Exactly, it's hard to dismiss the broad penetration of ChatGPT in the general population. I was an AI skeptic/luddite until almost exactly a year ago when, in a span of a month or so, I had three different friends/family members who work in various administrative jobs tell me that they all used ChatGPT surreptitiously at work to get things done. Now a year later I don't know many people that don't use it at least occasionally. The ones that don't are older and I'm confident eventually they'll be using it like crazy to annoy me.

xnx 1y ago

> because "AI" is "ChatGPT". People still call it "Kleenex" when they're using any old facial tissue. They may still call it "ChatGPT" when it's coming from Google.

kibwen 1y ago

> When average people are asked to reach for AI, they reach for ChatGPT. No, average people are nowhere near that tech-savvy. Just because every mom in the 90s called every video game console a "Nintendo" did not mean that Sony didn't mop the floor with Nintendo in that era. This isn't brand loyalty, it's brand genericity. Other than, say, Replika-style users who have formed an emotional bond with a certain style of chatbot, no average joe on the planet gives a damn whether the LLM powering their chat is provided by OpenAI or Google or etc. They'll use whatever's in front of them and most convenient, and unlike Google, Apple, or Microsoft, OpenAI doesn't own the platform that establishes the crucial defaults that nearly no user ever changes.

famouswaffles 1y ago
Except Open AI happen to be the Sony in this case. 700M Weekly active users and the 5th most visited site on the planet, with no-one else close. I mean, it's pretty clear this is less 'Nintendo' and more 'Google'.
- ath3nd 1y ago
  If Google was massively unprofitable and with no profitability path in sight, yeah, that's very much Google.
  - famouswaffles 1y ago
    Google was unprofitable for some time yes. I don't understand the obsession with the 'no profitability path in sight'. It's nonsensical. Their reported loss numbers are really low for a service with that many users. Open AI don't have to do a lot to be profitable, ads would be enough.
    - ath3nd 1y ago
      > Open AI don't have to do a lot to be profitable, ads would be enough. Yeah man, absolutely! Ads can pay for all of it! > It's nonsensical Yep, wanting a business to be profitable before investing in it, or at least to show that it could be profitable by providing a plan and timeline to profitability, is too much to ask for nowadays. Of course companies can be successful and great without any clear path to profitability, hype and enthusiasm are enough, just look at the great success of WeWork and Adam Neumann! Who are we to doubt that? Just keep repeatedly giving couple of trillions to Sama and all will be okay, AGI is just behind the corner, trust him bro.

piqufoh 1y ago

Anecdotally, "skype" was once synonymous with video calls but it's pretty much never used now.

thijsvandien 1y ago
It's literally never used now, because it was taken offline earlier this year.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  And before that it was essentially irrelevant and on life support for what, maybe a decade?