3 ms·
They consistently have the best or second best models. They have infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active users. Investors are lining up to give
by aurareturn 1y ago
They consistently have the best or second best models.
They have infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active users.
Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion.
There's price competition right now. They're still surviving. If there is price competition, they're the most likely to survive.
- nabla9 1y ago> Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion. Your premise is that there is no bubble. We are talking about what happens when bubble bursts. Without investor money drying out there is no bubble.
- aurareturn 1y agoI think we are in 1995 of the dotcom bubble for AI.
- arunabha 1y agoClearly, a lot of people here disagree with you. Doesn't mean you cannot be right, but in general, the HN crowd is a pretty good predictor of the trends in the tech industry.
- aurareturn 1y agoThe mass is usually wrong on predicting these kinds of events. I don't see why HN is any different than Reddit group think.
- Auracle 1y agoNobody was predicting for the dotcom or the financial crisis bubbles. The fact that everyone and their grandma is calling this a bubble makes me think that it simply can’t be.
- consp 1y agoBitcoin is going to be the next universal payment system anytime now...
- Auracle 1y agoWeird example to trot out as a bubble when at any point in its history, if you held for a few years or so you’d be pretty far ahead on your investment. It clearly shows people are awful at calling out bubbles.
- gizajob 1y agoMore like 1998
- lizknope 1y agoI asked a few weeks ago if we are at the Pets.com stage of the bubble yet.
- jimbokun 1y agoWhat if investors stop giving them money before they IPO?
- NumberCruncher 1y agoThey have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users. Even worse, they train their model(s) on the interactions of those non-paying customers, what makes the model(s) less useful for paying customers. It's kind of a "you can not charge for a Porsche if you only satisfy the needs of a typical Dacia owner".
- aurareturn 1y agoThey have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users. I don't pay Meta any money too. Yet, Meta is one of the most profitable companies in the world. I give more of my data to OpenAI than to Meta. ChatGPT knows so much about me. Don't you think they can easily monetize their 800 million (close to 1 billion by now) users?
- consp 1y agoMeta has the giant advantage that other people interact with your data. I think that is widely more valuable than what chat engines have.
- aurareturn 1y agoGiven that OpenAI has publicly stated that they're working on monetizing free users (ads), I think they can make ads targeting as good as Meta can. This is why Meta is all in on AI by the way. With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire.
- DeathArrow 1y ago>With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire. People are on Facebook to interact with other human beings, not LLMs. People won't leave Facebook to use ChatGPT.
- aurareturn 1y ago
- jcgrillo 1y ago> They consistently have the best or second best models. This is the problem with your original argument. It assumes that having a "good model" (e.g. one that performs well on some benchmarks) has somehow to do with something in the real world. It doesn't. If you can show that it does, your thesis might have at least a glimmer of credibility. The idea that a chatbot will somehow displace an operating system is the kind of absurdity that follows from making this error.