It seems to me you're comparing apples and oranges here.
I don't think so. 1 billion users and a clear intention to deliver ads with an immense amount of data on users. That's a clear threat to both Meta and Google.
PS. That's why Meta and Google are all in on AI. OpenAI is an existential threat to both in my humble opinion.
> You didn't state reasons why not being a social platform matters here.
There's nothing to pointlessly waste your time on. You open it to do a thing, you either do the thing or get frustrated or leave. Social networks are designed to waste your time even when they outlive their usefulness, therefore they can serve you more ads.
You could argue Google is the same as ChatGPT in that regard, but that's why Google has Adsense in almost any search result you click on.
As for your group chats feature argument, anyone can make a social network, that's the easy part. Getting friend groups to switch is the more difficult part.
> PS. That's why Meta and Google are all in on AI. OpenAI is an existential threat to both in my humble opinion.
They're all in on AI because that's what their investors want them to do to "not be left behind". Meta was all in Metaverse. And on a cryptocurrency before that (Diem). And on Free Basics before that. The fact that none of those succeeded didn't hurt them at all precisely because they had an infinite money glitch known as ads.
They can afford to waste amounts of money equivalent to a yearly budget of a small country, ChatGPT can't.
>There's nothing to pointlessly waste your time on.
Like Google Search, this does not really matter. Fact is, chatgpt is the 5th most visited site on the planet every month. And it happened in about 3 years. 'Nothing to waste your time on?' Completely irrelevant.
Being the most visited or the most used or the most whatever is absolutely useless information, and you should delete it from your mind.
Any idiot off the street can be the most used website on Earth. Easy - go to my website, and I give you free stuff. So why am I not a billionaire? Because that's a dumbass business model and that won't go anywhere.
The idea that if you just "flood the market" you can be successful is a crock of shit, and I think we're all starting to realize it. It's not difficult, or impressive, or laborious to provide something people want. It's difficult to do it in a way that makes money.
You might say - but what about Spotify? What about Uber? Those companies are not successful. They are just barely profitable, after investment on the order of decades. We don't actually know if a service like Spotify even works long term. It sounds fantastic - pay ten bucks or whatever and get all the music you want.
But has anyone taken a step back and asked - hmm - how do we make money off of this? Because obviously that is not the cost of music, right? And we don't own any of the capital, right? And we don't actually make a product, right, we're just a middle man?
ChatGPT is in a similar predicament. The value of ChatGPT is not the ChatGPT, it's what ChatGPT produces. It's a middle man, operating at massive losses, with absolutely no path towards profitability.
> The value of ChatGPT is not the ChatGPT, it's what ChatGPT produces. It's a middleman...
Spotify and Uber are aggregators with high marginal costs that they do not control. Spotify has to pay labels for every stream; Uber has to pay drivers for every ride. They cannot scale their way out of those costs because they don't own the underlying asset (the music or the labor).
OpenAI is not a middleman; they own the factory. They are "manufacturing" intelligence. Their primary costs are compute and energy. Unlike human labor (Uber) or IP licensing (Spotify), the cost of compute is on a strong deflationary curve. Inference costs have dropped orders of magnitudes in the last couple years while model quality has improved and costs will keep dropping. Gemini's median query costs no more than a google search. LLM inference is already cheap.
> Any idiot off the street can be the most used website on Earth. Easy - go to my website, and I give you free stuff.
If they were only burning cash to give away a free product, you’d be right. But they are reportedly at ~$4B in annualized revenue. That is not "giving away free stuff" to inflate metrics; that is the fastest-growing SaaS product in history.
You are conflating "burning cash to build infrastructure" (classic aggressive scaling, like early Amazon) with "structurally unprofitable unit economics" (MoviePass).
Open AI's unit economics are fine. Inference is cheap enough for ads to be viable enough for profitability as a business today. The costs this article is alluding to ? Open AI don't need to do any of that for tier of models and use-cases they have today. They are trying to build and be able to serve 'AGI', which they project will be orders of magnitudes more costly. If they do manage that, then none of those costs will matter. If they don't, then they can just...not do it. 'AGI' is not necessary for Open AI to be a profitable business.
> But they are reportedly at ~$4B in annualized revenue. That is not "giving away free stuff" to inflate metrics; that is the fastest-growing SaaS product in history.
Right, which is just not very impressive giving how much money they are burning.
> Open AI's unit economics are fine
I disagree, they lose massive amounts of money on every query.
The only way for OpenAI to make money off queries is to make it cost more, but that won't work because they have no moat, and cannot even create a moat because of how LLMs work. Again, the model itself or the interface is worthless, consumers only care about what it produces.
Google, Meta, et al. could trivially overthrow OpenAI in my view. Most users probably wouldn't even notice, because they use other interfaces on top of models.
I also think ads are a dead end. Consumers absolutely will not tolerate advertisements in their LLMs. No student is going to submit an essay which has obvious hints towards Bose making the best speakers. No programmer is going to write code that embeds a Java runtime because Oracle paid for OpenAI ad space. No artist is going to publish art that just so happens to contain lots of references to Coca Cola.
LLM chats are just not like other tools. If Google has ads, they can get in the way, but the core Google thing is not compromised. If an LLM has ads, I can no longer trust ANY of it's output, ever, and it's as good as worthless.
OpenAI might be tempted to do the dark pattern thing and hide their ads as much as possible, but I don't think that will work either. It's just not acceptable for the tool to do that, and I don't think consumers will be stupid enough to fall for it. Already, we are seeing online advertisement rapidly plummet in value due to the sheer volume and amount of scams.
Advertisers don't know that yet, but they will. Google might know it, but they certainly won't say it out loud. I can tell you right now, the average consumer has been so bombarded by shitty ads they've become masterminds. They expertly navigate around them, and elegantly ignore them in their peripheral vision. They know X, Y, Z is a scam. New advertisement mediums shake it up, for a bit, but then those die too. Metrics won't necessarily tell you that, because most users are robots so you wouldn't know.
> You didn't state reasons why not being a social platform matters here.
The network effects matter so much more for a social platform than a chat bot. The switching costs for a user are much lower, so users can move to a different one much easier.
How sticky will chat bots prove to be in the long term? Will OpenAI be able to maintain a lead in the space in the long term, the way Google was over Bing? It's possible, but it's also pretty easy to imagine other providers being competitive and a landscape where users move between different LLMs more fluidly
Another reason why social media matters is that people actually spend their free time in all those feeds. On the other hand, using LLMs is much more oriented towards specific utilities. Having 1B users who visit you once a day to ask for an email proofread will not make you profitable.
But, like search, it captures intent to buy much better, while looking at feeds for internatinment does not. Adwords worked because of that, they could capture ad revenue on queries that lead to sales. The amount of extra context in AI chat is even better, as is the ability to steer the conversation to different options.
I think Google is the much bigger threat. I've more or elss stopped using ChatGPT now, it's easier to just type the question directly into Google and get the response from their AI rather than navigating to chatgpt first. Anecdotal but I don't see anything long term keeping people on that site.
I wanna push back on this a little, sure, openAI has a certain level of detail in it's dataset because of the fact that you actually have conversations with it in order to use their product, but we're talking about a short window of time since the inception of ChatGPT. Google has all your searches (if you use google.com) and all of your browsing history (if you use a chromium based browser) and all of your emails (if you use gmail.com) and they have been adding to this dataset for a lot longer. Personally I stopped using google.com and I have tried my hardest to avoid Chromium-based web-browsers in the last 5-10 years but they still have a hefty dataset of all of my actions before that or when I'm on a (work) computer that forces me to use their systems. Because of this I'm not entirely sure OpenAI knows my intent better than Google, purely based on amount of data processed.
Problem is the day Google puts a similarly priced and more powerful chatbot similar to ChatGPT and powered by Gemini most users will switch without a second thought, and Google will get all that data about their personal life too. OpenAI having a free tier with powerful models is unsustainable, brand loyalty is a joke at this stage, people will not bother going to ChatGPT if the search bar in their browser starts a discussion with Google. I’m sure big players like Google know OpenAI is a temporary scheme to get free money, they are surfing along now but they are playing the long game.
There are plenty of things I say to ChatGPT that are not immediate need. ChatGPT can easily build a very accurate profile of me as a person and what my past, present and future needs are.
Maybe, but OpenAI only get the data you decide to type into ChatGPT in a vibe therapy session or whatever, and they have to burn a load of GPU time to keep you feeding it more slop.
Google just passively collects email and browsing history, much better data for targeting ads and way less cost to run.
Meta has WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook to account for that.
OpenAI has ChatGPT (not a social platform).
It seems to me you're comparing apples and oranges here.