[HN Gopher] Google is winning on every AI front
___________________________________________________________________
Google is winning on every AI front
Author : vinhnx
Score : 906 points
Date : 2025-04-12 03:58 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
| throwaway519 wrote:
| It isn't when considering Google's brand has (long) lost trust in
| how it hanles data. This is especially true with larger
| companies, F500 type brands, who tend to avoid Google for infra
| as do governments.
| rusk wrote:
| Tell that to the bank I work for that just switched to GCP
| decimalenough wrote:
| F500/government are conservative and tend to stick with the
| vendors they know, which is why Azure has gained so much
| traction despite being worse than AWS & GCP pretty much across
| the board.
|
| Trust in handling data doesn't really come into this; if
| anything Google has a very strong reputation for security.
| js4ever wrote:
| Tell that to UniSuper: https://www.business-
| standard.com/world-news/google-cloud-ac...
| decimalenough wrote:
| That was a billing fuckup that had nothing to do with
| security.
| re-thc wrote:
| > F500/government are conservative and tend to stick with the
| vendors they know, which is why Azure has gained so much
| traction
|
| Outcome is the same, but being "conservative" isn't the real
| reason.
|
| Adding a vendor requires compliance work, process, finance
| etc that it's just effort.
|
| 99% of medium-large companies use Microsoft in some form so
| Azure can skip all of that to some extent.
| Jensson wrote:
| That is what he meant with conservative, ie trying to not
| do new things because it takes more work to change.
| re-thc wrote:
| > ie trying to not do new things because it takes more
| work to change
|
| That's not what the word conservative means, not by the
| dictionary or even politically.
|
| Conservative is the averse to change or to hold
| traditional values without logic. It's more like a type
| of fear. Even if the change was easy or have 0 cost, a
| conservative entity won't do it.
| mejthemage wrote:
| Why did you copy the dictionary's definition nearly
| perfectly, but then add "without logic"?
|
| In many cases, the conservative approach to a problem is
| prudent because the old ways work whereas there is more
| risk and uncertainty with new.
|
| That's not fear, it's wisdom.
| mdhb wrote:
| Agreed, they are literal generations ahead of Microsoft in
| real life.
| suddenexample wrote:
| Weird - it's hard to beat widespread online narratives, but as
| someone who worked at Google there's no company I'd trust more
| with the "handling" part of my data. There's no doubt that on
| device is always a more private option, but if you've decided
| to keep data in the cloud, then Google is probably one of the
| most secure options you could choose.
| GeneralMayhem wrote:
| Same, as another former Googler. I worked on a team that had
| a relatively large amount of data access, and the amount of
| protection in place - technical and procedural, preventative
| and remedial - made me extremely comfortable giving Google
| basically all of my personal data, knowing that only the bare
| minimum would ever be looked at, and even then securely and
| in an anonymized or (usually) aggregated format.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| as an outsider, Google is one of the companies I trust the
| most to prevent unintended leaks of my data, but also one
| of the ones I trust with my data least.
| mdhb wrote:
| I think there's a bit of a mismatch here between data
| Google collects on me as a regular user which they can
| and due process in a million different ways in order to
| sell shit to you. This extends to AI unless you're paying
| for it in which case it's a very different ballgame.
|
| Then there is data that I put into a Google service like
| drive or cloud which genuinely is probably the single
| safest consumer option I know of in 2025.
| Jensson wrote:
| > but also one of the ones I trust with my data least.
|
| What thing have they done with user data that you feel
| will negatively affect you? As far as I know people just
| don't like that they have a lot of data, nobody every
| said they did bad stuff with that data.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| What F500 brands do you think avoid google? Most of the biggest
| ones are on GCP for ML at least.
| remoquete wrote:
| I was a loyal Claude user until I decided to try Gemini 2.5.
| "After all", I thought, "I already use a Pixel phone, so it's
| integrated with Android. And with Google Drive. And I can get it
| through my Google One subscription."
|
| And now that I'm on it, I don't think I'm going back. Google did
| it again.
| firecall wrote:
| Just to add, I am mainly an iPhone user. But I have a Google
| Pixel 6a for dev and testing reasons.
|
| And Google Gemini for the voice assistant is excellent fun!
|
| Just being able to ask it weird and wonderful whilst on a road
| trip with the kids is worth the cost of a cheap Pixel phone
| alone!
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| Yeah I find myself actually talking to the Gemini assistant
| like I never have to any other
| jofzar wrote:
| I have to seriously disagree on it for the "assistant" part.
| It is so terrible vs Google assistant.
|
| There have been two really bad experiences that I had which
| boggled my mind.
|
| These are transcribed because these were so bad I took a
| screenshot.
|
| Example 1: "set an alarm for 15 minutes"
|
| > Gemini sets the alarm for 1:15pm
|
| "I want that to be 50 minutes"
|
| > "you can change the duration of alarms in the clock app"
|
| Example 2:
|
| "what the temperature today"
|
| > It is currently 5 degrees Celsius
|
| - It was October in Sydney, the temperature was 22c with a
| low of 12c.....
| morsch wrote:
| Gemini never sets alarms for me and always points me to the
| app. Trying to call people is a crap shoot. Presumably
| there are settings for this somewhere, but there are like
| fifty sharing settings in four different places and it's
| impossible to know which apply to the old assistant or
| Gemini or both or just on the lock screen or to connected
| devices or... It's a mess.
|
| It's even worse, when I tell it to set a timer now, it'll
| happily tell me it's been set -- but it hasn't (nothing in
| the app and I waited, to be sure). This is all reproducible
| and on a Pixel 8.
| jofzar wrote:
| Timer works for me, it uses the "utilities" connection to
| do it.
|
| I wonder if your utilities is disconnected, because it's
| the same for the alarm
| morsch wrote:
| Thanks, apparently utilities is disabled because I
| disabled something called Apps Activity because the data
| sharing involved seemed both bonkers and vague.
|
| Sharing chat transcripts I'd hate but deal with, but
| they're also getting files and images shared (ie possibly
| my screen whenever it thinks it heard hey Google or
| registers a double tap), related product usage which
| could mean anything, and seemingly unrestricted access to
| your location. https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/1
| 3594961?sjid=12105...
|
| Not sure why I can use Gemini in general but can't have
| it set up an alarm without all that. Or why the AI thinks
| it can set up an alarm when it doesn't. I guess I'll opt
| in and try it out a bit.
| nicpottier wrote:
| It was really bad at first for this type of thing. I just
| tried a few of them because I too had given up on them
| and they seem to work perfectly now. It even cancelled
| the alarm I had previously set when I simply said "cancel
| the last alarm".
| gundmc wrote:
| > October in Sydney
|
| These sound like fairly dated anecdotes. I don't doubt them
| at all - I had similar horror stories. I disabled Gemini on
| my phone in order to keep the old assistant for a long
| time, but it really has gotten a lot better in the last few
| months.
| jofzar wrote:
| March 11th was when the alarm one was From, these are
| just ones that I have screenshot because they were so bad
| I shared with a friend.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/nj4newx
|
| Edit: I just asked it for the weather this week and it
| only showed today. Like this is Amateur hour stuff, Siri
| 1.0 stuff.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/81mz98Y
| gundmc wrote:
| I can replicate your weather one! I think it's taking
| "this week" extremely literally and the week ends on
| Saturday. Asking for "this weekend" gives Saturday and
| Sunday. Asking for the next few days gives 3 days out,
| etc .
|
| Definitely not addressing the spirit of the request.
| jofzar wrote:
| > and the week ends on Saturday.
|
| Except it doesn't, in literally every other country other
| then Japan, USA and Canada it ends on Sunday.
|
| Edit: https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/days/first-
| day-of-the-w...
|
| I'm wrong on the countries, it's more split then I
| thought. Regardless it's wrong for my geo which google
| knows I'm in.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| <rant>Google is seemingly giving up on localization
| entirely. The whole world gets to be Yankee.
|
| It's now started giving me F temperatures on my
| homescreen, for no particular reason. It knows I'm in
| Canada. I have set my units in the past to metric. What
| gives?
|
| I still don't have Canadian English as a locale in
| Android or Chrome, after what, 15 years of Android? It's
| got words highlighted all over my page here as mis-
| spellings. They're not. I really did mean to type colour
| you piece of crap. I can switch to British but then get
| spanked for colourize instead of colourised etc.
|
| And it seems to tie choice of English variant to things
| like pronounciation of words and accent for voice
| assistant. My car speaks to me in a British accent
| because I have it set to British English (the closest
| thing to my own spellings).
|
| They never even tried to handle the facts of the (40M
| person) Canadian bilingual market. Navigation is either
| French or English, but many Canadian road sides are in
| both and it tries to read them out and butchers the
| pronounciations. Drive into Quebec and have your phone
| set to English and it's laughable what it does. (Notably
| doesn't do this for Spanish words in the US, which it
| seems to have no problem with).</>
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| GP said they were in Sydney. As far as I know, the week
| officially starts on Monday in Australia. That's also the
| case for most of Europe, BTW. Maybe their locale wasn't
| set right or it's another case of American software
| assuming weird American standards for the rest of the
| world.
| OJFord wrote:
| I didn't know this about the USA - but it's still called
| 'the weekend'? (GP uses it at least) ..Even though 50% of
| it is apparently 'the weekstart'?
| gundmc wrote:
| Yes, the weekend is Saturday and Sunday in the United
| States. I guess you could consider it like "bookends",
| for us it's the start and end of the week.
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| Try setting a "timer" for 15 minutes instead of an "alarm".
|
| Not sure if this is a regional dialect thing, but in North
| America, a timer has a duration, but an alarm is set for a
| specific time, which would possibly explain the confusion.
| wccrawford wrote:
| While I agree it'd let the user use the system, the
| system should do the right thing for either situation, or
| at least abort and say it doesn't understand. That's the
| problem with LLMs so far. They can't admit they don't
| understand.
| ksec wrote:
| At this point something happened to Google, may be Open AI? And
| it seems everything is finally moving.
|
| Unfortunately Pixel is still not available as widely as iPhone.
| They still need to work on its hardware as well as
| distribution.
|
| The only thing I dislike is their AOM only or anti JPEG XL.
| weinzierl wrote:
| Out of interest: Using Gemini on your phone, integrated and
| all, obviously reduces friction, but would you say convenience
| is the only reason for you not going back or do you feel Gemini
| is a real improvement as well?
| remoquete wrote:
| The improvement in Gemini 2.5 is real, but I wouldn't say
| it's miles away from Claude 3.7. The fact that web browsing
| still isn't in Claude in Europe bothered me. It's many little
| things.
| akkad33 wrote:
| > Google did it again.
|
| This is quite vague. What did they do
| remoquete wrote:
| Ensure I only use them. It happened with search first, then
| mobile (Pixel), now it's LLMs.
| acheron wrote:
| Is this an example of how to integrate ads into an AI response?
| remoquete wrote:
| Could be, if an AI actually wrote it.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Sounds like a generic AI response, though maybe I'm being
| too harsh, the AI response would probably be longer and
| more detailed. So, you want to tell us _why_ it 's so much
| better than Claude?
| remoquete wrote:
| AI-or-not silliness aside (gets boring real fast): I find
| Gemini to be faster (it matters), more reliable, with
| quality of responses being at the same level as Claude's.
| Better integration with Google apps and devices is a
| plus.
| singhrac wrote:
| Can you choose a model via the Gemini app? I can on the webapp
| (finally), but on the mobile app it won't let me choose.
|
| Using Gemini via Google Workspace.
| remoquete wrote:
| You can. Then again, I'm paying.
| throwup238 wrote:
| 2.5 Pro Experimental and Deep Research showed up in the
| Gemini app for me today days after it was available on web so
| it seems to be different roll outs for different platforms.
| antirez wrote:
| Gemini 2.5 pro is as powerful as everybody says. I still also use
| Claude Sonnet 3.7 only because the Gemini web UI has issues...
| (Imagine creating the best AI and then not allowing to attach
| Python or C files if not renamed .txt) but the way the model is
| better than anyone else is a "that's another league" experience.
| They have the biggest search engine and YouTube to leverage the
| power of the AI they are developing. At this point I believe too
| that they are likely to win the race.
| discordance wrote:
| Instead of renaming files to .txt, you should try Gemini 2.5
| pro through OpenRouter with roo, Cline or using Github Copilot.
| I've been testing GH Copilot [0] and it's been working really
| well.
|
| 0: https://github.blog/changelog/2025-04-11-copilot-chat-
| users-...
| antirez wrote:
| I know perfectly I can use the API with any wrapper. I don't
| do that for choice, my human+AI development style is in the
| form of the chat, and since I discovered that _many_ models
| behave differently (especially Gemini 2.5) based on where you
| invoke them (I don 't know what Google is doing internally,
| if they change temperature / context size / ...) I stick with
| using the default way a model is provided to the public by a
| given provider. Besides, while I write a lot of code with the
| assistance of AI, my use case is mainly code reviews, design
| verification / brainstorming, and so forth, not much "write
| this code for me" (not that I believe there is anything wrong
| with it, just a matter of preferences -- I do it for things
| like tests, or to have a template when the coding task is
| just library calls that are boring to put together: typical
| use case, "generate the boilerplate to load a JPEG file with
| libjpeg"). So I keep using the web chat :)
| BillyTheKing wrote:
| apart from those weird file attach issues I actually think
| they've got a much better UI than anthropic as well - much much
| snappier even with extremely long chats (in addition to much
| higher limits obviously, totally different league). I love
| using it
| eru wrote:
| It's really annoying that in their Android app, Gemini
| doesn't automatically scroll to the bottom of a long chat
| when you re-open it.
|
| Otherwise, I like their 2.5 model, too.
| eru wrote:
| > At this point I believe too that they are likely to win the
| race.
|
| I'm not so sure.
|
| In the mid 2010s they looked like they were ahead of everyone
| else in the AI race, too. Remember the (well-deserved!)
| spectacle around AlphaGo? Then they lost steam for a while.
|
| So I wouldn't bet that any momentary lead will last.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| On Chrome you can share your whole Project directory to Gemini.
| I think it uses the File System Access api which Firefox
| doesn't support.
| torginus wrote:
| Will there be a winner at all? Perhaps it's going to be like
| cars where there are dozens of world class manufacturers, or
| like Linux, where there's just one thing, but its free and
| impossible to monetize directly.
| gwd wrote:
| Linux works because network effects pressure everyone to
| upstream their changes. There's no such upstreaming possible
| with the open-weight models, and new sets of base weights can
| only be generated with millions of dollars of compute.
| Companies could conceivably collaborate on architectures and
| data sets, but with the amount of compute and data involved,
| only a handful of organizations would ever have the resources
| to be able to contribute.
|
| Unlike Linux, which was started by a cranky Finn on his home
| computer, and can still be built and improved by anyone who
| can afford a Raspberry Pi.
| RyanHamilton wrote:
| I thought for cars it was because certain countries decided
| at state level that car making was strategically their thing?
| That combined with fashion, meaning some percentage of people
| want different looking cars.
| dtquad wrote:
| >Linux, where there's just one thing, but its free and
| impossible to monetize directly
|
| Redhat and SUSE are multi-billion dollar Linux distro
| companies.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| Not by selling Linux, but providing support.
| paradite wrote:
| You can bypass this problem by embedding relevant source code
| files directly in the prompt itself.
|
| I built a desktop GUI tool called 16x Prompt that help you do
| it: https://prompt.16x.engineer/
| jstummbillig wrote:
| I am not even sure how to use Gemini 2.5 pro ergonomically
| right now. Cursor and Windsurf both obviously have issues,
| probably optimized too much around Claude, but what else is
| there?
|
| Is everyone copy pasting into the Google AI studio or what?
| jerrygenser wrote:
| Try aider.chat - it is a cli you can add files for context
| and it will make edits to the code directly via a commit.
| flaviolivolsi wrote:
| Try Gemini 2.5 Pro in Roo Code and never look back
| mrshu wrote:
| One option would be https://geminicodes.co/ -- a CLI tool
| with Claude Code-like aesthetics.
|
| It is a hobbyist weekend project though, the experience with
| Aider or ra-aid might be much better.
| thorax wrote:
| In AI Studio, it seemed to let me upload pretty much any file
| and tokenize it without renaming, FWIW
| oezi wrote:
| Their technical progress is indeed impressive. And their price
| dumping of 2.5 Pro for free will have moved a lot of technical
| users.
|
| The key question is if the can stop the decline in search or
| pivot their revenue streams to Gemini.
| ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote:
| Is there really a decline in web searches or in Google's usage
| vs competitors? Seems like one of those greatly exaggerated
| rumors?
| mattlondon wrote:
| +1
|
| If anything I think their revenue is still growing by double
| figures (?) which is insane considering we're decades and
| billions of users into the business.
| Bewelge wrote:
| From a personal website, that's been pretty constantly
| getting 2k hits from Google each week:
|
| Bing 150-200 / week
|
| Yandex ~100 / week
|
| DDG ~50 / week
|
| ChatGPT is now at ~50 hits a week.
|
| So from that data it looks like Google still has their
| comfortable 80%+ market share. But I think it's interesting
| if you think about the kind of users that use these products.
| In my mind, the alternative search engines are used mostly by
| techies and people that care about their privacy (also often
| techies), but ChatGPT is used by a much broader slice of the
| population.
|
| But maybe I'm projecting because my own search behaviour has
| changed so dramatically with ChatGPT & Claude having replaced
| a substantial part of my Google searches.
| thunderbird120 wrote:
| This article doesn't mention TPUs anywhere. I don't think it's
| obvious for people outside of google's ecosystem just how
| extraordinarily good the JAX + TPU ecosystem is. Google several
| structural advantages over other major players, but the largest
| one is that they roll their own compute solution which is
| actually very mature and competitive. TPUs are extremely good at
| both training and inference[1] especially at scale. Google's
| ability to tailor their mature hardware to exactly what they need
| gives them a massive leg up on competition. AI companies
| fundamentally have to answer the question "what can you do that
| no one else can?". Google's hardware advantage provides an actual
| answer to that question which can't be erased the next time
| someone drops a new model onto huggingface.
|
| [1]https://blog.google/products/google-cloud/ironwood-tpu-
| age-o...
| noosphr wrote:
| And yet google's main structural disadvantage is being google.
|
| Modern BERT with the extended context has solved natural
| language web search. I mean it as no exaggeration that
| _everything_ google does for search is now obsolete. The only
| reason why google search isn't dead yet is that it takes a
| while to index all web paged into a vector database.
|
| And yet it wasn't google that released the architecture update,
| it was hugging face as a summer collaboration between a dozen
| people. Google's version came out in 2018 and languished for a
| decade because it would destroy their business model.
|
| Google is too risk averse to do anything, but completely doomed
| if they don't cannibalize their cash cow product. Web search is
| no longer a crown jewel, but plumbing that answering services,
| like perplexity, need. I don't see google being able to pull
| off an iPhone moment where they killed the iPod to win the next
| 20 years.
| visarga wrote:
| > Modern BERT with the extended context has solved natural
| language web search. I mean it as no exaggeration that
| _everything_ google does for search is now obsolete.
|
| The web UI for people using search may be obsolete, but
| search is hot, all AIs need it, both web and local. It's
| because models don't have recent information in them and are
| unable to reliably quote from memory.
| nroets wrote:
| And models often makes reasoning errors. Many users will
| want to check that the sources substantiate the conclusion.
| vidarh wrote:
| The point is that the secret sauce in Google's search was
| better retrieval, and the assertion above is that the
| advantage there is gone. While crawling the web isn't a
| piece of cake, it's a much smaller moat than retrieval
| quality was.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Eh, I don't really see that.
|
| Crawling the web has a huge moat because a huge number of
| sites have blocked 'abusive' crawlers _except_ Google and
| possibly Bing.
|
| For example just try to crawl sites like Reddit and see
| how long before you're blocked and get a "please pay us
| for our data" message.
| literalAardvark wrote:
| My experience running a few hundred very successful shops
| (hundreds of thousands of orders per month) is that
| there's no need for quotes around 'abusive'.
|
| 95% of our load is from crawlers, so we have to pick who
| to serve.
|
| If they want our data all they need to do is offer a way
| for us to send it, we're happy to increase exposure and
| shopping aggregation site updates are our second highest
| priority task after price and availability updates.
| vidarh wrote:
| It may be tricky, but it's a piece of cake compared to
| doing good retrieval.
| podnami wrote:
| Do we have insights on whether they knew that their business
| model was at risk? My understanding is that OpenAI's
| credibility lies in seeing the potential of scaling up a
| transformer-based model and that Google was caught off guard.
| dash2 wrote:
| They can just plug the google.com web page into their AI.
| They already do that.
| fragmede wrote:
| but because users are used to doing that for free, they
| can't charge money for that, but if they don't charge money
| for that, and no one's seeing ads, then where does they
| money come from?
| eitally wrote:
| Well, it clearly affects search ads, but in terms of
| revenue streams Google is already somewhat diversified:
|
| 1. Search ads (at risk of disintermediation) 2. Display
| ads (not going anywhere) 3. Ad-supported YouTube 4. Ad-
| supported YouTube TV 5. Ad-supported Maps 6.
| Partnership/Ad supported Travel, YouTube, News, Shopping
| (and probably several more) 7. Hardware (ChromeOS
| licensing, Android, Pixel, Nest) 8. Cloud
|
| There are probably more ad-supported or ad-enhanced
| properties, but what's been shifting over the past few
| years is the focus on subscription-supported products:
|
| 1. YouTube TV 2. YouTube Premium 3. GoogleOne (initially
| for storage, but now also for advanced AI access) 4. Nest
| Aware 5. Android Play Store 6. Google Fi 7. Workspace
| (and affiliated products)
|
| In terms of search, we're already seeing a renaissance of
| new options, most of which are AI-powered or enhanced,
| like basic LLM interfaces (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc), or
| fundamentally improved products like Perplexity & Kagi.
| But Google has a broad and deep moat relative to any
| direct competitors. Its existential risk factors are
| mostly regulation/legal challenge and specific product
| competition, but not everything on all fronts all at
| once.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > Google is too risk averse to do anything, but completely
| doomed if they don't cannibalize their cash cow product.
|
| Google's cash-cow product is relevant ads. You can display
| relevant ads in LLM output or natural language web-search. As
| long as people are interacting with a Google property, I
| really don't think it matters what that product is, as long
| as there are ad views. Also:
|
| > Web search is no longer a crown jewel, but plumbing that
| answering services, like perplexity, need
|
| This sounds like a gigantic competitive advantage if you're
| selling AI-based products. You don't have to give everyone
| access to the good search via API, just your inhouse AI
| generator.
| michaelt wrote:
| Kodak was well placed to profit from the rise of digital
| imaging - in the late 1970s and early 1980s Kodak labs
| pioneered colour image sensors, and was producing some of
| the highest resolution CCDs out there.
|
| Bryce Bayer worked for Kodak when he invented and patented
| the Bayer pattern filter used in essentially every colour
| image sensor to this day.
|
| But the problem was: Kodak had a big film business - with a
| lot of film factories, a lot of employees, a lot of
| executives, and a lot of recurring revenue. And jumping
| into digital with both feet would have threatened all that.
|
| So they didn't capitalise on their early lead - and now
| they're bankrupt, reduced to licensing their brand to
| third-party battery makers.
|
| _> You can display relevant ads in LLM output or natural
| language web-search._
|
| Maybe. But the LLM costs a lot more per response.
|
| Making half a cent is very profitable if you only take 0.2s
| of CPU to do it. Making half a cent with 30 seconds
| multiple GPUs, consuming 1000W of power... isn't.
| djtango wrote:
| This is a good anecdote and it reminds me of how Sony had
| cloud architecture/digital distribution, a music label,
| movie studio, mobile phones, music players, speakers,
| tvs, laptops, mobile apps... and totally missed out on
| building Spotify or Netflix.
|
| I do think Google is a little different to Kodak however;
| their scale and influence is on another level. GSuite,
| Cloud, YouTube and Android are pretty huge
| diversifications from Search in my mind even if Search is
| still the money maker...
| fragmede wrote:
| It goes to internal corporate culture, and what happens
| to you when you point out an uncomfortable truth. Do we
| shoot the messenger, or heed her warnings and pivot the
| hopefully not Titanic? RIM/Blackberry didn't manage to
| avoid it either.
|
| People like to believe CEOs aren't worth their pay
| package, and sometimes they're not. But a look at a
| couple of their failures and a different CEO of Kodak
| wouldn't have had what happened happen, makes me think
| that sometimes, some of them do deserve that.
| johnecheck wrote:
| If the king/ceo is great, autocracy works well.
|
| When a fool inevitably takes the throne, disaster ensues.
|
| I can't say for sure that a different system of
| government would have saved Kodak. But when one man's
| choices result in disaster for a massive organization, I
| don't blame the man. I blame the structure that laid the
| power to make such a mistake on his shoulders.
| fragmede wrote:
| that seems weird. Why hold up one person as being great
| while not also holding up one person as not? If my leader
| led me into battle and we were victorious, we'd put it on
| them. if they lead us to ruin, why should I blame the
| organizational structure that led to them getting power
| as the culprit instead of blaming them directly?
| decimalenough wrote:
| Sony's Achilles heel was and remains software. You can't
| build a Spotify or Netflix if you can't build a proper
| website.
| vel0city wrote:
| That, and while Sony had all these big groups they often
| didn't play nice with each other. Look at how they failed
| to make Minidisc into any useful data platforms with PCs,
| largely because MD's were consumer devices and not
| personal computers so they were pretty much only seen as
| music hardware.
|
| Even on the few Vaios that had MD drives on them, they're
| pretty much just an external MD player permanently glued
| to the device instead of being a full and deeply
| integrated PC component.
| dgacmu wrote:
| 1/2 kW/minute costs about $0.001 so you technically could
| make a profit at that rate. The real problem is the GPU
| cost - a $20k GPU amortized over five years costs $0.046
| per second. :)
| pingou wrote:
| How do you get that? I get $0.0001 per second over 5
| years to reach 20k.
| dgacmu wrote:
| Because I'm an idiot and left off a factor of 365. Thank
| you! A 20k GPU for 30 seconds is 1/3 of a cent. Still
| more than the power but also potentially profitable under
| this scenario informing all the other overhead and
| utilization.
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| > Google's cash-cow product is relevant ads.
|
| As a business Google's interest is in showing ads that make
| it the most money - if they quickly show just the relevant
| information then Google loses advertising opportunities.
|
| To an extent, it is the web equivalent of irl super markets
| intentionally moving stuff around and having checkout
| displays.
| dambusm wrote:
| > As a business Google's interest is in showing ads that
| make it the most money - if they quickly show just the
| relevant information then Google loses advertising
| opportunities.
|
| This is just a question of UX- the purpose of their
| search engine was already to show the most relevant
| information (ie. links), but they just put some semi-
| relevant information (ie. sponsored links) first, and
| make a fortune. They can just do the same with AI
| results.
| danpalmer wrote:
| This would be like claiming in 2010 that because Page Rank is
| out there, search is a solved problem and there's no secret
| sauce, and the following decade proved that false.
| noosphr wrote:
| In a time where statistical models couldn't understand
| natural language the click stream from users was their
| secret sauce.
|
| Today a consumer grade >8b decoder only model does a better
| job of predicting if some (long) string of text matches a
| user query than any bespoke algorithm would.
|
| The only reason why encoder only models are better than
| decoder only models is that you can cache the results
| against the corpus ahead of time.
| jampekka wrote:
| > Modern BERT with the extended context has solved natural
| language web search.
|
| I doubt this. Embedding models are no panacea even with a lot
| simpler retrieval tasks like RAG.
| noosphr wrote:
| RAG is literally what Google Search is.
|
| Unlike the natural language queries that RAG has to deal
| with, Google searches are (usually) atomic ideas and
| encoder-only models have a much easier time with them.
| marsten wrote:
| I think what may save Google from an Innovator's Dilemma
| extinction is that none of the AI would-be Google killers
| (OpenAI etc.) have figured out how to achieve any degree of
| lock-in. We're in a phase right now where everybody gets
| excited by the latest model and the switching cost is next to
| zero. This is very different from the dynamics of, say, Intel
| missing the boat on mobile CPUs.
|
| I've been wondering for some time what sustainable advantage
| will end up looking like in AI. The only obvious thing is
| that whoever invents an AI that can remember who you are and
| every conversation it's had with you -- that will be a sticky
| product.
| krackers wrote:
| Assuming that DeepSeek continues to open-source, then we can
| assume that in the future there won't be any "secret sauce" in
| model architecture. Only data and training/serving
| infrastructure, and Google is in a good position with regard to
| both.
| fulafel wrote:
| Making your own hardware would seem to yield freedoms in
| model architectures as well since performance is closely
| related to how the model architecture fits the hardware.
| jononor wrote:
| Google is also in a great position wrt distribution - to get
| users at scale, and attach to pre-existing revenue streams.
| Via Android, Gmail, Docs, Search - they have a lot of reach.
| YouTube as well, though fit there is maybe less obvious.
| Combined with the two factors you mention, and the size of
| their warchest - they are really excellently positioned.
| mattlondon wrote:
| YouTube is very well positioned - all these video
| generating models etc. I am sure they'll be loads of AI
| editors too
| vitaflo wrote:
| Good, maybe Youtube will finally recommend something to
| me I actually want to watch.
| HaZeust wrote:
| Personally, I've never actually heard this problem. Do
| you watch industry-specific videos in a non-anonymized
| browser session enough? Once you watch, like, 5 videos on
| topics you care about, the algorithm has no shortage of
| astute suggestions.
| collingreen wrote:
| I'm not the person you're replying to but in my
| experience the YouTube algorithm is quite bad at filling
| my wish for a variety of topics and tone at all levels. I
| feel like watching one or two clips from the same channel
| suddenly floods me with that going forward which is
| rarely what I want. Personally I have a core set of
| things I want lots of plus I'd really appreciate brief
| forays into new topics with similar creators or new
| creators with similar topics but this feels completely
| impossible for me on yt.
|
| I think they've jumped the shark and need to give me more
| control because currently I actively avoid watching
| videos I think MIGHT be interesting because the risk is
| too high. This is a terrible position to put your users
| in both from a specific experience perspective but also
| in a "how they feel about your product" perspective.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Over the last nine months, I have periodically tested
| Gemini's access to and effective use of data from
| Gmail/Docs/Calendar/Keep-notes, etc.
|
| The improvement has been steady and impressive. The entire
| integration is becoming a product that I want to use.
| cootsnuck wrote:
| Yea, I just ended up trying out their Gemini stuff in
| Sheets and Slides. In Sheets it's pretty cool to have it
| just directly insert formulas for me. In Slides
| it's...okay...it was useful for me to rush to get a
| presentation done. But I can tell it's pretty bad
| compared to literally anyone who has enough time to just
| create a decent presentation. But I can also tell it will
| get better at least.
| tinodb wrote:
| Does that ever provide you with anything more than a lame
| summary? I mean Gemini models can do a lot, but I don't
| have the feeling they've well integrated tbh.
| spwa4 wrote:
| ... except that it still pretty much requires Nvidia
| hardware. Maybe not for edge inference, but even inference at
| scale (ie. say at companies, or governments) will still
| require it.
| retinaros wrote:
| they re not alone to do that tho.. aws also does and I believe
| microsoft is into it too
| marcusb wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > I'm forgetting something. Oh, of course, Google is also a
| hardware company. With its left arm, Google is fighting Nvidia
| in the AI chip market (both to eliminate its former GPU
| dependence and to eventually sell its chips to other
| companies). How well are they doing? They just announced the
| 7th version of their TPU, Ironwood. The specifications are
| impressive. It's a chip made for the AI era of inference, just
| like Nvidia Blackwell
| thunderbird120 wrote:
| Nice to see that they added that, but that section wasn't in
| the article when I wrote that comment.
| marcusb wrote:
| Maybe they read your comment?
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| It was there.
| marcusb wrote:
| To be fair to thunderbird120, the author of this piece
| made edits at some point. See https://archive.is/K4n9E.
| No discussion of the recent TPU releases, or TPUs for
| all, for that matter.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| You are correct. I misjudged.I thought I had read the
| article early, it must have been just after the edits.
| marcusb wrote:
| You and me both.
| jibal wrote:
| "I'm forgetting something." was a giant blaring clue.
| Take this as an opportunity to learn the lesson of not
| calling someone a liar unless you are very very sure and
| have taken all the evidence into account.
| imtringued wrote:
| Google is what everyone thinks OpenAI is.
|
| Google has their own cloud with their data centers with their
| own custom designed hardware using their own machine learning
| software stack running their in-house designed neural networks.
|
| The only thing Google is missing is designing a computer memory
| that is specifically tailored for machine learning. Something
| like processing in memory.
| ENGNR wrote:
| The one thing they lack that OpenAI has is... product focus.
| There's some kind of management issue that makes Google all
| over the shop, cancelling products for no reason. Whereas Sam
| Altmans team is right on the money.
|
| Google is catching up fast on product though.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| TPUs aren't necessarily a pro. They go back 15 years and don't
| seem to have yielded any kind of durable advantage. Developing
| them is expensive but their architecture was often over-fit to
| yesterday's algorithms which is why they've been through so
| many redesigns. Their competitors have routinely moved much
| faster using CUDA.
|
| Once the space settles down, the balance might tip towards
| specialized accelerators but NVIDIA has plenty of room to make
| specialized silicon and cut prices too. Google has still to
| prove that the TPU investment is worth it.
| dgacmu wrote:
| They go back about 11 years.
| phillypham wrote:
| Depending how you count, parent comment is accurate.
| Hardware doesn't just appear. 4 years of planning and R&D
| for the first generation chip is probably right.
| dgacmu wrote:
| The first TPU (Seastar) was designed, tested, and
| deployed in 15 months: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04760
|
| They started becoming available internally in mid 2015.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| I was wrong, ironically because Google's AI overview says
| it's 15 years if you search. The article it's quoting
| from appears to be counting the creation of TensorFlow as
| an "origin".
| dgacmu wrote:
| That's awesome. :) and even that article is off. They
| probably were thinking of DistBelief, the predecessor to
| TF.
| foota wrote:
| Haven't Nvidia published roughly as many chip designs in the
| same period?
| mike_hearn wrote:
| The issue isn't number of designs but architectural
| stability. NVIDIA's chips have been general purpose for a
| long time. They get faster and more powerful but CUDA has
| always been able to run any kind of neural network. TPUs
| used to be over-specialised to specific NN types and
| couldn't handle even quite small evolutions in algorithm
| design whereas NVIDIA cards could. Google has used a lot of
| GPU hardware too, as a consequence.
| pixl97 wrote:
| At the same time if the TPU didn't exist NVIDIA would
| pretty much have a complete monopoly on the market.
|
| While Nv does have an unlimited money printer at the
| moment, the fact that at least some potential future
| competition exists does represent a threat to that.
| alienthrowaway wrote:
| > Developing them is expensive
|
| So are the electric and cooling costs at Google's scale.
| Improving perf-per-watt efficiency can pay for itself. The
| fact that they keep iterating on it suggests it's not a
| negative-return exercise.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| TPUs probably can pay for themselves, especially given
| NVIDIA's huge margins. But it's not a given that it's so
| just because they fund it. When I worked there Google
| routinely funded all kinds of things without even the
| foggiest idea of whether it was profitable or not. There
| was just a really strong philosophical commitment to doing
| everything in house no matter what.
| marsten wrote:
| > When I worked there Google routinely funded all kinds
| of things without even the foggiest idea of whether it
| was profitable or not.
|
| You're talking about small-money bets. The technical
| infrastructure group at Google makes a lot of them, to
| explore options or hedge risks, but they only scale the
| things that make financial sense. They aren't dumb people
| after all.
|
| The TPU was a small-money bet for quite a few years until
| this latest AI boom.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| Maybe it's changed. I'm going back a long way but part of
| my view on this was shaped by an internal white paper
| written by an engineer who analyzed the cost of building
| a Gmail clone using commodity tech vs Google's in house
| approach, this was maybe circa 2010. He didn't even look
| at people costs, just hardware, and the commodity tech
| stack smoked Gmail's on cost without much difference in
| features (this was focused on storage and serving, not
| spam filtering where there was no comparably good
| commodity solution).
|
| The cost delta was massive and really quite astounding to
| see spelled out because it was hardly talked about
| internally even after the paper was written. And if you
| took into account the very high comp Google engineers
| got, even back then when it was lower than today, the
| delta became comic. If Gmail had been a normal business
| it'd have been outcompeted on price and gone broke
| instantly, the cost disadvantage was so huge.
|
| The people who built Gmail were far from dumb but they
| just weren't being measured on cost efficiency at all.
| The same issues could be seen at all levels of the Google
| stack at that time. For instance, one reason for Gmail's
| cost problem was that the underlying shared storage
| systems like replicated BigTables were very expensive
| compared to more ordinary SANs. And Google's insistence
| on being able to take clusters offline at will with very
| little notice required a higher replication factor than a
| normal company would have used. There were certainly
| benefits in terms of rapid iteration on advanced
| datacenter tech, but did every product really need such
| advanced datacenters to begin with? Probably not. The
| products I worked on didn't seem to.
|
| Occasionally we'd get a reality check when acquiring
| companies and discovering they ran competitive products
| on what was for Google an unimaginably thrifty budget.
|
| So Google was certainly willing to scale things up that
| only made financial sense if you were in an environment
| totally unconstrained by normal budgets. Perhaps the
| hardware divisions operate differently, but it was true
| of the software side at least.
| summerlight wrote:
| Not sure how familiar you are with the internal situation...
| But from my experience think it's safe to say that TPU
| basically multiplies Google's computation capability by 10x,
| if not 20x. Also they don't need to compete with others to
| secure expensive nvidia chips. If this is not an advantage, I
| don't see there's anything considered to be an advantage. The
| entire point of vertical integration is to secure full
| control of your stack so your capability won't be limited by
| potential competitors, and TPU is one of the key component of
| its strategy.
|
| Also worth noting that its Ads division is the largest,
| heaviest user of TPU. Thanks to it, it can flex running a
| bunch of different expensive models that you cannot
| realistically afford with GPU. The revenue delta from this is
| more than enough to pay off the entire investment history for
| TPU.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| They must very much compete with others. All these chips
| are being fabbed at the same facilities in Taiwan and
| capacity trades off against each other. Google has to
| compete for the same fab capacity alongside everyone else,
| as well as skilled chip designers etc.
|
| _> The revenue delta from this is more than enough to pay
| off the entire investment history for TPU._
|
| Possibly; such statements were common when I was there too
| but digging in would often reveal that the numbers being
| used for what things cost, or how revenue was being
| allocated, were kind of ad hoc and semi-fictional. It
| doesn't matter as long as the company itself makes money,
| but I heard a lot of very odd accounting when I was there.
| Doubtful that changed in the years since.
|
| Regardless the question is not whether some ads launches
| can pay for the TPUs, the question is whether it'd have
| worked out cheaper in the end to just buy lots of GPUs.
| Answering that would require a lot of data that's certainly
| considered very sensitive, and makes some assumptions about
| whether Google could have negotiated private deals etc.
| summerlight wrote:
| > They must very much compete with others. All these
| chips are being fabbed at the same facilities in Taiwan
| and capacity trades off against each other.
|
| I'm not sure what you're trying to deliver here.
| Following your logic, even if you have a fab you need to
| compete for rare metals, ASML etc etc... That's a logic
| built for nothing but its own sake. In the real world, it
| is much easier to compete outside Nvidia's own allocation
| as you get rid of the critical bottleneck. And Nvidia has
| all the incentives to control the supply to maximize its
| own profit, not to meet the demands.
|
| > Possibly; such statements were common when I was there
| too but digging in would often reveal that the numbers
| being used for what things cost, or how revenue was being
| allocated, were kind of ad hoc and semi-fictional.
|
| > Regardless the question is not whether some ads
| launches can pay for the TPUs, the question is whether
| it'd have worked out cheaper in the end to just buy lots
| of GPUs.
|
| Of course everyone can build their own narratives in
| favor of their launch, but I've been involved in some of
| those ads quality launches and can say pretty confidently
| that most of those launches would not be launchable
| without TPU at all. This was especially true in the early
| days of TPU as the supply of GPU for datacenter was
| extremely limited and immature.
|
| More GPU can solve? Companies are talking about 100k~200k
| of H100 as a massive cluster and Google already has much
| larger TPU clusters with computation capability in a
| different order of magnitudes. The problem is, you cannot
| simply buy more computation even if you have lots of
| money. I've been pretty clear about how relying on
| Nvidia's supply could be a critical limiting factor in a
| strategic point of view but you're trying to move the
| point. Please don't.
| albert_e wrote:
| Amazon also invests in own hardware and silicon -- the
| Inferentia and Trainium chips for example.
|
| But I am not sure how AWS and Google Cloud match up in terms of
| making this verticial integration work for their competitive
| advantage.
|
| Any insight there - would be curious to read up on.
|
| I guess Microsoft for that matter also has been investing -- we
| heard about the latest quantum breakthrough that was reported
| as creating a fundamenatally new physical state of matter. Not
| sure if they also have some traction with GPUs and others with
| more immediate applications.
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| I've used Jax quite a bit and it's so much better than
| tf/pytorch.
|
| Now for the life of me, I still haven't been able to understan
| what a TPU is. Is it Google's marketing term for a GPU? Or is
| it something different entirely?
| JLO64 wrote:
| TPUs (short for Tensor Processing Units) are Google's custom
| AI accelerator hardware which are completely separate from
| GPUs. I remember that introduced them in 2015ish but I
| imagine that they're really starting to pay off with Gemini.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_Processing_Unit
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| Believe it or not, I'm also familiar with Wikipedia. It
| reads that they're optimized for low precisio high thruput.
| To me this sounds like a GPU with a specific optimization.
| flebron wrote:
| Perhaps this chapter can help? https://jax-
| ml.github.io/scaling-book/tpus/
|
| It's a chip (and associated hardware) that can do linear
| algebra operations really fast. XLA and TPUs were co-
| designed, so as long as what you are doing is expressible
| in XLA's HLO language
| (https://openxla.org/xla/operation_semantics), the TPU
| can run it, and in many cases run it very efficiently.
| TPUs have different scaling properties than GPUs (think
| sparser but much larger communication), no graphics
| hardware inside them (no shader hardware, no raytracing
| hardware, etc), and a different control flow regime
| ("single-threaded" with very-wide SIMD primitives, as
| opposed to massively-multithreaded GPUs).
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| Thank you for the answer! You see, up until now I had
| never appreciated that a GPU does more than matmuls...
| And that first reference, what a find :-)
|
| Edit: And btw, another question that I had had before was
| what's the difference between a tensor core and a GPU,
| and based on your answer, my speculative answer to that
| would be that the tensor core is the part inside the GPU
| that actually does the matmuls.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I mean yes. But GPU's also have a specific optimization,
| for graphics. This is a different optimization.
| kgwgk wrote:
| Did you also read just after that "without hardware for
| rasterisation/texture mapping"? Does that sound like a
| _G_PU?
| jibal wrote:
| You asked a question, people tried to help, and you
| lashed out at them in a way that makes you look quite
| bad.
| 317070 wrote:
| Way back when, most of a GPU was for graphics. Google decided
| to design a completely new chip, which focused on the
| operations for neural networks (mainly vectorized matmul).
| This is the TPU.
|
| It's not a GPU, as there is no graphics hardware there
| anymore. Just memory and very efficient cores, capable of
| doing massively parallel matmuls on the memory. The
| instruction set is tiny, basically only capable of doing
| transformer operations fast.
|
| Today, I'm not sure how much graphics an A100 GPU still can
| do. But I guess the answer is "too much"?
| kcb wrote:
| Less and less with each generation. The A100 has 160 ROPS,
| a 5090 has 176, the H100 and GB100 have just 24.
| mota7 wrote:
| There's basically a difference in philosophy. GPU chips have
| a bunch of cores, each of which is semi-capable, whereas TPU
| chips have (effectively) one enormous core.
|
| So GPUs have ~120 small systolic arrays, one per SM (aka, a
| tensorcore), plus passable off-chip bandwidth (aka 16 lines
| of PCI).
|
| Where has TPUs have one honking big systolic array, plus
| large amounts of off-chip bandwidth.
|
| This roughly translates to GPUs being better if you're doing
| a bunch of different small-ish things in parallel, but TPUs
| are better if you're doing lots of large matrix multiplies.
| acstorage wrote:
| Unclear if they can actually beat GPUs in training throughout
| with 4D parallelism
| 6510 wrote:
| The problem is always their company never the product. They had
| countless great products. You cant depend on a product if the
| company is reliably unreliable enough. If they don't simply
| delete it for being expensive and "unprofitable" they might
| initially win, eventually, like search and youtube, it will be
| so watered down you cant taste the wine.
| AlbertoRomGar wrote:
| I am the author of the article. It was there since the
| beginning, just behind the paywall, which I removed due to the
| amount of interest the topic was receiving.
| glacier5674 wrote:
| If you search for Shockmaster, the AI Overview you get is as
| follows:
|
| > Fred Alex Ottman, a retired American professional wrestler, is
| known for his WWF personas "Tugboat" and "Typhoon". He also
| wrestled as "Big Steel Man" and "Big Bubba" before joining the
| WWF in 1989. Ottman wrestled for the WWF from 1989-1993, where he
| was a key ally of Hulk Hogan. He later wrestled in World
| Championship Wrestling as "The Shockmaster", a character known
| for raising his fist and making a "toot-toot" sound.
|
| Which is _obviously_ false. The "toot-toot" was part of his
| gimmick as Tugboat, while the Shockmaster gimmick is known for
| its notoriously botched reveal.
|
| Point being, Google is losing on the "telling one early 90s
| wrestling gimmick from another" AI front.
| krackers wrote:
| Gemini 2.5 pro is not the same that powers web search (or any
| of the dozen other Gemini related things).
| esperent wrote:
| This post is claiming Google is winning on _every_ AI front.
| Search summary is a front on which, as far as I can tell, no
| one is winning. But Google is one of the worst.
| ruuda wrote:
| I'm trying Imagen 3 to add pictures to a presentation in Google
| Slides, and it's making such basic mistakes that I thought image
| models weren't making any more by now. I tried for half an hour
| to prompt it into generating an illustration of a Thinkpad facing
| with the back to the viewer, so the keyboard is not visible. It
| couldn't do it, it would always make the keyboard face towards
| the viewer. Or you ask for an illustration of an animal pointing
| a finger, and it gives it an additional arm. Meanwhile you ask
| OpenAI to ghiblify a picture while changing the setting and
| adding 5 other things, and it absolutely nails it.
| remoquete wrote:
| Image generation is extremely good in GPT now. Claude's edge is
| UX. But I doubt Google won't catch up on both fronts. It has
| the technology and manpower.
| boznz wrote:
| I thought it was just me. A few hours ago Gemini told me "As a
| language model, I'm not able to assist you with that." This was
| after generating an image a few minutes earlier. I think the
| copy/paste buffer pulled in some old source files I had
| attached a few days earlier (no idea how) because under the
| "sources and related content" it now showed two files Gemini is
| obviously calling its brother imagen for offloading the image
| generation, which is smart I guess if it works
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Can Gemini 2.5 pro generate images? It only describes them
| for me.
| boznz wrote:
| I'm using 2.0 Flash and if I ask it, it says yes it can,
| but it does seem hit and miss as above.
| vunderba wrote:
| From my comparison tests focusing on prompt adherence, I would
| agree 4o edges out Imagen3 as long as speed is not a concern.
|
| https://genai-showdown.specr.net
|
| If Imagen3 had the multimodal features that 4o had, it would
| certainly put it closer to 4o, but being able to instructively
| change an image (instruct pix2pix style) is incredibly
| powerful.
|
| It's crazy how far GenAI for imagery has come. Just few short
| years ago, you would have struggled just to get three colored
| cubes stacked on top of each other in a specific order SHRDLU
| style. Now? You can prompt for a specific four-pane comic strip
| and have it reasonably follow your directives.
| torginus wrote:
| This reads like sports commentary.
| nailer wrote:
| It also reads like someone thinking benchmarks make good
| products.
| glimshe wrote:
| Gemini Pro 2.5 is fantastic. I'm anti Google and a long time
| ChatGPT user. I use it for text review and research and it's well
| ahead the competition. Let's see how long they last giving it for
| free.
| Turfie wrote:
| Why are you anti Google?
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| Google collects and stores grotesque amounts of data about
| the public https://takeout.google.com
| rockwotj wrote:
| And OpenAI doesn't/wouldn't if they had the chance?
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| OpenAI absolutely _would_ , but OpenAI can't.
|
| Google _can_ spy on _everything_ : via its OS, its
| browser, its Youtube, its search engine, its ad network,
| its blog network, its maps app, its translation service,
| its fonts service, its 8.8.8.8, its Office suite, its
| captcha, its analytics service, and on and on and on...
| retskrad wrote:
| Gemini 2.5 Pro might be one of the best for coding but for
| creative tasks like writing and sharing ideas, I vastly prefer
| GPT 4o and GPT 4.5 to an even larger extent.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Gemini 2.5 Pro's prose isn't quite as tight as GPT4.5s, but
| being able to have long form writing where your entire
| manuscript is in the context, along with all your
| source/background material, and it all gets used _well_ is
| pretty stellar. That lets Gemini update scenes in a really
| thoughtful, intelligent way, and frankly it's a better beta
| reader than ~85% of the people I've hired on Fiverr.
| int_19h wrote:
| For creative writing, Claude runs circles around both IMO.
| Lukman wrote:
| In my experience Claude 3.7 is far superior for coding than
| Gemini 2.5. I tried it in Cursor and I wanted it to work, as a
| recent ex-Googler. I repeatedly found it inferior. I think it's
| still behind Claud 3.5 for coding.
|
| It would decide arbitrarily not to finish tasks and suggest that
| I do them. It made simple errors and failed to catch them.
| jinay wrote:
| Cursor is likely very tuned for Claude (prompts-wise and all)
| due to its dominance with 3.5 and now 3.7. Still, Gemini 2.5's
| tool calling has been pretty poor in my experience which Cursor
| heavily relies on.
| mjirv wrote:
| Yep. Tool calling is terrible across all Gemini models. I'm
| not sure why, when the model itself is so good.
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| It depends on the task, and prompting feels different.
|
| I've found that sonnet is possibly better at starting things
| from scratch and frontend code, while Gemini has been able to
| one-shot difficult problems and fix bugs that sonnet has
| struggled with.
|
| Switching between them is a frequent occurrence for me.
|
| It might be relevant that I've completely stopped using Cursor
| in favor of other tools/agents.
| pzo wrote:
| > It might be relevant that I've completely stopped using
| Cursor in favor of other tools/agents.
|
| Can you share what you use these days? I switched from cursor
| to windsurf but also want to play more with Trae and
| Cline/RooCode
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| If I were to recommend one to someone today, I might pick
| RooCode. I'd suggest checking out boomerang mode and
| RooFlow on GitHub.
|
| Here are some others that I've tried and could recommend,
| in no particular order:
|
| - https://github.com/ai-christianson/RA.Aid
|
| - https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code
|
| - https://github.com/block/goose
|
| - https://github.com/hotovo/aider-desk
|
| I've also created a few "agents" to do specific tasks using
| Probe[0] as an MCP server, although I'm sure you could
| create a full-fledged agent with it if you wanted to.
|
| [0] https://github.com/buger/probe
| thawab wrote:
| Your issue is because:
|
| 1- the cursor agent doesn't work with gemini. Some times the
| diff edit even doesn't work.
|
| 2- Cursor does semantic search to lower the token they sent to
| models.
|
| The big advantage for Gemini is the context window, use it with
| aider, clien or roo code.
| esperent wrote:
| > clien or roo code
|
| What's the difference between Cline and Roo Code now?
| Originally Roo was a fork of Cline that added a couple of
| extra settings. But now it seems like an entirely different
| app, with it's own website even.
|
| https://roocode.com/
| thawab wrote:
| I hope this will help:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/RooCode/comments/1jn372q/roocode_v
| s...
| esperent wrote:
| It does, thank you. Looks like Roo decided to add _all_
| the options.
| cootsnuck wrote:
| I literally was just using Cursor agent mode with Gemini 2.5
| pro two days ago...and it worked wonderfully. One-shots
| simple app redactors first try.
| entropyneur wrote:
| Same. I went back from Gemini to Claude yesterday, because
| Gemini was writing decidedly worse code, at times not even able
| to stick to Python syntax. Using Aider.
| Kholin wrote:
| Same here. I've seen some articles and LLM benchmarks that
| Gemini 2.5 Pro is better than Claude 3.7 on coding, but base on
| my recent experience of solving code problems with two
| products, Claude still gave me better answer, Gemini response
| are more detail and well structured, but less accurate.
| ddalex wrote:
| Use Roo Code, Cursor is terrible
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| Back when all the articles talked about how OpenAI swiped
| Google's crown while Google sat on transformers and never
| productized them, I saw this future coming. Google had back then,
| and still has, the best research on this topic, and ultimately
| that was going to win the day.
|
| Sure, hindsight is 20/20, and who knows if any of these products
| will be big money makers vs commodities, and they may still fail
| at the productization of these things. Sure.
|
| But insofar as productization follows great technology, Google
| was always going to have the upper hand here. It took many years
| but they did finally start coming out ahead
| codelord wrote:
| As an Ex-OpenAI employee I agree with this. Most of the top ML
| talent at OpenAI already have left to either do their own thing
| or join other startups. A few are still there but I doubt if
| they'll be around in a year. The main successful product from
| OpenAI is the ChatGPT app, but there's a limit on how much you
| can charge people for subscription fees. I think soon people
| expect this service to be provided for free and ads would become
| the main option to make money out of chatbots. The whole time
| that I was at OpenAI until now GOOG has been the only individual
| stock that I've been holding. Despite the threat to their search
| business I think they'll bounce back because they have a lot of
| cards to play. OpenAI is an annoyance for Google, because they
| are willing to burn money to get users. Google can't as easily
| burn money, since they already have billions of users, but also
| they are a public company and have to answer to investors. But I
| doubt if OpenAI investors would sign up to give more money to be
| burned in a year. Google just needs to ease off on the red tape
| and make their innovations available to users as fast as they
| can. (And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.)
| ksec wrote:
| > (And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.)
|
| Please do.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| I would like to know how he manages to appear, in every
| single photo I see of him, to look slightly but
| unmistakenly... _moist_ , or at least sweaty.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| People keep assassinating him, and clones always look a bit
| moist the first day out of the pod.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Are the assassinations because of something we already
| know about? some new advance that is still under wraps?
| or is it time travelers with knowledge about what he will
| do if left unchecked?
| omnimus wrote:
| Peter Thiel is the like that too. Hyperhidrosis is in some
| people common sideffect of drugs.
| hlynurd wrote:
| I often look moist after I use a moisturizer.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| He's certainly a damp boy.
| derwiki wrote:
| It's a side effect of Ibogaine, the same drug that it was
| rumored Ed Muskie was on in the '72 campaign.
| throw1223323 wrote:
| Based on his interview with Joe Rogan, he has absolutely no
| imagination about what it means if humans actually manage to
| build general AI. Rogan basically ends up introducting him to
| some basic ideas about transhumanism.
|
| To me, he is a finance bro grifter who lucked into his
| current position. Without Ilya he would still be peddling
| WorldCoin.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Coming up next: dumb and dumber schools Noam Chomsky on
| modern philosophy...
| kleiba wrote:
| Almost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro
| viraptor wrote:
| There's weirdly many people who touch on the work around
| transhumanism but never heard the word before. There's a
| video of geohot basically talking about that idea, then
| someone from the audience mentions the name... and geohotz
| is confused. I'm honestly surprised.
| tim333 wrote:
| The transhumanists tended to be philosopher types, the
| name coming from this kind of idea of humanism:
|
| >Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the
| individual and social potential, and agency of human
| beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious
| moral and philosophical inquiry. (wikipedia)
|
| Whereas the other lot are often engineers / compsci /
| business people building stuff.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > who lucked into his current position
|
| Which can be said for most of the survivorship-biased
| "greats" we talk about. Right time, right place.
|
| (Although to be fair -- and we can think of the Two Steves,
| or Bill and Paul -- there are often a number of people at
| the right time and right place -- so somehow the few we
| still talk about knew to take advantage of that right time
| and right place.)
| bobxmax wrote:
| it's weird how nobodies will always tell themselves
| succesful people got there by sheer blind luck
|
| yet they can never seem to explain why those succesful
| people all seem to have similar traits in terms of work
| ethic and intelligence
|
| you'd think there would be a bunch of lazy slackers
| making it big in tech but alas
| mekoka wrote:
| I think you might have it backward. Luck here implies
| starting with exactly the same work ethic and abilities
| as millions of other people that all hope to one day see
| their numbers come up in the lottery of limited
| opportunities. It's not to say that successful people
| start off as lazy slackers as you say, but if you were to
| observe one such lazy slacker who's made a half-assed
| effort at building something that even just accidentally
| turned out to be a success, you might see that rare
| modicum of validation fuel them enough that the
| motivation transforms them into a workhorse. Often time,
| when the biography is written, lines are slightly redrawn
| to project the post-success persona back a few years pre-
| success. A completely different recounting of history
| thus ensues. Usually one where there was blood, sweat,
| and fire involved to get to that first ticket.
| bobxmax wrote:
| so you've moved the goalposts even further now and
| speculate that succesful people started out as slackers,
| got lucky, and that luck made them work harder
|
| as an Asian, it amazes me how far Americans and Europeans
| will go to avoid a hard days work
| bobxmax wrote:
| yeah because you're a hacker news poster lol
|
| same audience who think Jobs is a grifter and Woz is the
| true reason for Apple's success
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| It's a rabbit hole with many layers (levels?), but this is a
| good starting point and gateway to related information:
|
| Key Facts from "The Secrets and Misdirection Behind Sam
| Altman's Firing from OpenAI": https://www.lesswrong.com/posts
| /25EgRNWcY6PM3fWZh/openai-12-...
| falcor84 wrote:
| > Google can't as easily burn money
|
| I was actually surprised at Google's willingness to offer
| Gemini 2.5 Pro via AI Studio for free; having this was a
| significant contributor to my decision to cancel my OpenAI
| subscription.
| relistan wrote:
| This is 100% why they did it.
| ff4 wrote:
| Google offering Gemini 2.5 Pro for free, enough to ditch
| OpenAI, reminds me of an old tactic.
|
| Microsoft gained control in the '90s by bundling Internet
| Explorer with Windows for free, undercutting Netscape's
| browser. This leveraged Windows' dominance to make Explorer
| the default choice, sidelining competitors and capturing the
| browser market. By 1998, Netscape's share plummeted, and
| Microsoft controlled access to the web.
|
| Free isn't generous--it's strategic. Google's hooking you
| into their ecosystem, betting you'll build on their tools and
| stay. It feels like a deal, but it's a moat. They're not
| selling the model; they're buying your loyalty.
| ghurtado wrote:
| > undercutting Netscape's browser
|
| It almost sounds like you're saying that Netscape wasn't
| free, and I'm pretty sure it was always free, before and
| after Microsoft Explorer
| ploxiln wrote:
| > Netscape, in contrast, sells the consumer version of
| Navigator for a suggested price of $49. Users can
| download a free evaluation copy from the Internet, but it
| expires in 90 days and does not include technical
| support.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/19/business/netscape-
| moves-t...
| franze wrote:
| yeah, it was free as the evaluation copy did not really
| expire. just some features that nobody cared about
| asadotzler wrote:
| 90% of Netscape users were free users and by late 1997,
| less than two years after the IPO and massive user
| growth, it was free to all because of MS's bundling
| threat. That didn't help. By 2002, MS owned 95% of access
| to the web. No one has ever reached even close to first
| mover Netscape or cheater bundled IE since, with the far
| superior non-profit Firefox managing almost 30% and
| Chrome from the biggest web player in history sitting
| "only" at about 65%.
|
| Bundling a "good enough" products can do a lot, including
| take you from near zero to overwhelmingly dominant in 5
| years, as MS did.
| falcor84 wrote:
| The joke's on them, because I don't have any loyalty to an
| LLM provider.
|
| There's very close to zero switching costs, both on the
| consumer front and the API front; no real distinguishing
| features and no network effects; just whoever has the best
| model at this point in time.
| cousin_it wrote:
| There is a network effect: more user interaction = more
| training data. I don't know how important it is, though.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Yep, this is why android phones are now pointing out
| their gemini features every moment they can. They want to
| turn their spying device into an AI spying device.
| m11a wrote:
| I feel like they're trying to increase switching costs.
| eg was huge reluctance to adopt MCP and each had their
| own tool framework, until it seemed too big to ignore and
| everyone was just building MCP tools not OpenAI SDK
| tools.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| I'm assuming Google's play here is to bleed its
| competitors of money and raise prices when they're gone.
| Building top-tier models is extremely expensive and will
| probably remain so.
|
| Even companies that do it "on the cheap," like DeepSeek,
| pay tens of millions to train a single model, and total
| expenditures for infrastructure and salaries are
| estimated to surpass $1 billion. This market has an
| extremely high cost of entry.
|
| So, I guess Google is applying the usual strategy here:
| undercut competition until it implodes and buy up any
| promising competitors that arise in the future. Given the
| current lack of market regulation in the US, this might
| work.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| They'll also need a fleet of humanoid robots eventually
| to compete with Elon's physical world data collection
| plans.
| codethief wrote:
| Too bad they sold Boston Dynamics :)
| datavirtue wrote:
| Yeah, they just have to make it through the hype and
| innovation cycle.
| thijson wrote:
| The strategy worked, Netscape is no more. Eventually
| Google did the same to Microsoft though. I wonder if any
| lessons can be taken from the browser wars to how things
| will play out with AI models.
| at0mic22 wrote:
| Remember Google tried to play this trick with ChromeOS?
| coliveira wrote:
| You don't have loyalty, but one day there will be no one
| else to switch to. So, if you're a loyal user or not is a
| moot point.
| falcor84 wrote:
| History shows it's a self-defeating victory. If one
| provider were to "win" and stop innovating, they'll
| become ripe for disruption by the likes of Deepseek, and
| the second someone like that has a better model, I'll
| switch.
| coliveira wrote:
| Nothing lasts forever, not even empires. This doesn't
| mean that tech monopoly is any better than any other
| monopoly. They're all detrimental to society.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Eh, and if you're in the US the 'big guys' will have
| their favorite paid off politician put in a law that use
| of Chinese models is illegal or whatever.
|
| Rent seeking behavior is always the end game.
| sumedh wrote:
| > If one provider were to "win" and stop innovating,
| they'll become ripe for disruption by the likes of
| Deepseek
|
| Yes but that can take decades, till that time Google can
| keep making money with sub standard products and stop
| innovating.
| asadotzler wrote:
| The same was true for Web browsers in 2002, yet MS
| controlled 95% of the access to the web thanks to that
| bundling and no other "good enough" competitors until
| Firefox came along a few years later and took 30% from
| them giving Google an in to take the whole game with
| Chrome a few years later.
| cheema33 wrote:
| I pay for ChatGPT, Anthropic and Copilot. After using Gemini
| 2.5 Pro via AI Studio, I plan on canceling all other paid AI
| services. There is no point in keeping them.
| mikehotel wrote:
| From the terms of use:
|
| To help with quality and improve our products, human
| reviewers may read, annotate, and process your API input and
| output. Google takes steps to protect your privacy as part of
| this process. This includes disconnecting this data from your
| Google Account, API key, and Cloud project before reviewers
| see or annotate it. Do not submit sensitive, confidential, or
| personal information to the Unpaid Services.
|
| https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms#data-use-unpaid
| imiric wrote:
| > I think soon people expect this service to be provided for
| free and ads would become the main option to make money out of
| chatbots.
|
| I also think adtech corrupting AI as well is inevitable, but I
| dread for that future. Chatbots are much more personal than
| websites, and users are expected to give them deeply personal
| data. Their output containing ads would be far more effective
| at psychological manipulation than traditional ads are. It
| would also be far more profitable, so I'm sure that marketers
| are salivating at this opportunity, and adtech masterminds are
| hard at work to make this a reality already.
|
| The repercussions of this will be much greater than we can
| imagine. I would love to be wrong, so I'm open to being
| convinced otherwise.
| jononor wrote:
| I agree with you. There is also a move toward "agents", where
| the AI can make decisions and take actions for you. It is
| very early days for that, but it looks ike it might come
| sooner than I had though. That opens up even more potential
| for influence on financial decisions (which is what adtech
| wants) - it could choose which things to buy for a given
| "need".
| imiric wrote:
| Hey, we could save them all the busywork, and just wire all
| our money to corporations...
|
| But financial nightmare scenarios aside, I'm more concerned
| about the influence from private and government agencies.
| Advertising is propaganda that seeks to separate us from
| our money, but other forms of propaganda that influences
| how we think and act has much deeper sociopolitical
| effects. The instability we see today is largely the result
| of psyops conducted over decades across all media outlets,
| but once it becomes possible to influence something as
| personal as a chatbot, the situation will get even more
| insane. It's unthinkable that we're merrily building that
| future without seemingly any precautions in mind.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I have yet to understand this obsession with agents.
|
| Is making decisions the hardest thing in life for so many
| people? Or is this instead a desire to do away with human
| capital -- to "automate" a workforce?
|
| Regardless, here is this wild new technology (LLMs) that
| seems to have just fallen out of the sky; we're
| continuously finding out all the seemingly-formerly-
| unimaginable things you can do with it; but somehow the
| collective have already foreseen its ultimate role.
|
| As though the people pushing the ARPANET into the public
| realm were so certain that it would become the Encyclopedia
| Galactica!
| tilne wrote:
| > Or is this instead a desire to do away with human
| capital -- to "automate" a workforce?
|
| This is what I see motivating non-technical people to
| learn about agents. There's lots of jobs that are
| essentially reading/memorizing complicated instructions
| and entering data accordingly.
| dinfinity wrote:
| > I have yet to understand this obsession with agents.
|
| 1. People who can afford personal assistants and staff in
| general gladly pay those people to do stuff for them. AI
| assistants promise to make this way of living accessible
| to the plebs.
|
| 2. People _love_ being "the idea guy", but never having
| to do any of the (hard) work. And honestly, just the
| speedup to actually convert the myriad of ideas floating
| around in various heads to prototypes/MVPs is
| causing/will cause somewhat of a Cambrian explosion of
| such things.
| samtp wrote:
| A Cambrian explosion of half baked ideas, filled with
| hallucinations, unable to ever get past the first step.
| Sounds lovely.
| fragmede wrote:
| They were already not getting past the first step before
| AI came along. If AI helps them get to step two, and then
| three and four, that seems like a good thing, no?
| jart wrote:
| Only a small percent of people will actually produce
| ideas that other people are interested in. For most
| people, AI tools for building things will enable them to
| construct their own personalized worlds. Imagine watching
| movies, except the movies can be generated for you on the
| fly. Sure, no one except you might care about a Matrix
| Moulin Rouge crossover. But you'll be able to have it
| just like that.
| dinfinity wrote:
| > A Cambrian explosion of half baked ideas,
|
| Well yeah, that's how evolution works: it's an
| exploration of the search space and only the good stuff
| survives.
|
| > filled with hallucinations,
|
| The end products can be fully AI-free. In fact, I would
| expect most ideas that have been floating around to have
| nothing to do with AI. To be fair, that may change with
| it being the new hip thing. Even then, there are plenty
| of implementations that use AI where hallucinations are
| no problem at all (or even a feature), or where the
| issues with hallucinations are sufficiently mitigated.
|
| > unable to ever get past the first step.
|
| How so? There are already a bunch of functional things
| that were in Show HN that were produced with AI
| assistance. Again, most of the implemented ideas will
| suck, but some will be awesome and might change the
| world.
| popcorncowboy wrote:
| If you reframe agents as (effectively) slave labor, the
| economic incentives driving this stampede become trivial
| to understand.
| fragmede wrote:
| > Is making decisions the hardest thing in life for so
| many people?
|
| Should I take this job or that one? Which college should
| I go to? Should I date this person or that one? Life has
| some really hard decisions you have to make, and that's
| just life. There are no wrong answers, but figuring out
| what to do and ruminating over it is comes to everyone at
| some point in their lives. You can ask ChatGPT to ask you
| the right questions you need asked in order to figure out
| what you really want to do. I don't know how to put a
| price on that, but that's worth way more than $20/month.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Right, but before a product can do all of those things
| well it will have to do one of those things well. And by
| "well" I mean reliably superhuman, not usually but
| sometimes embarrassingly poorly.
|
| People used to (and still do) pay fortune tellers to make
| decisions for them. Doesn't mean they're good ones.
| fragmede wrote:
| fwiw I used it the other day to help me figure out where
| I stand on a particular issue, so it seems like it's
| already there.
| sumedh wrote:
| > Is making decisions the hardest thing in life for so
| many people?
|
| Take insurance, for example -- do you actually enjoy
| shopping for it?
|
| What if you could just share a few basic details, and an
| AI agent did all the research for you, then came back
| with the top 3 insurance plans that fit your needs,
| complete with the pros and cons?
|
| Why wouldn't that be a better way to choose?
| fn-mote wrote:
| There are already web sites that do this for products
| like insurance (example: [1]).
|
| What I need is something to troll through the garbage
| Amazon listings and offer me the product that _actually
| has_ the specs that I searched for and is offered by a
| seller with more than 50 total sales. Maybe an AI agent
| can do that for me?
|
| [1]: https://www.policygenius.com/
| sumedh wrote:
| > There are already web sites that do this for products
| like insurance
|
| You didnt get the point, instead of going to such website
| for solving the insurance problem, going to 10 other
| websites for solving 10 other problems, just let one AI
| agent do it for you.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| You're assuming ads would be subtly worked into the answers.
| There's no reason it has to be done that way. You can also
| have a classic text ads system that's matching on the
| contents of the discussions, or which triggers only for
| clearly commercial queries "chatgpt I want to eat out
| tonight, recommend me somewhere", and which emits visually
| distinct ads. Most advertisers wouldn't want LLMs to make
| fake recommendations anyway, they want to control the way
| their ad appears and what ad copy is used.
|
| There's lots of ways to do that which don't hurt trust. Over
| time Google lost it as they got addicted to reporting
| massively quarterly growth, but for many years they were able
| to mix in ads with search results without people being
| unhappy or distrusting organic results, and also having a
| very successful business model. Even today Google's biggest
| trust problem by far is with conservatives, and that's due to
| explicit censorship of the right: corruption for ideological
| not commercial reasons.
|
| So there seems to be a lot of ways in which LLM companies can
| do this.
|
| Main issue is that building an ad network is really hard. You
| need lots of inventory to make it worthwhile.
| imiric wrote:
| > You're assuming ads would be subtly worked into the
| answers. There's no reason it has to be done that way.
|
| I highly doubt advertisers will settle for a solution
| that's less profitable. That would be like settling for
| plain-text ads without profiling data and microtargeting.
| Google tried that in the "don't be evil" days, and look how
| that turned out.
|
| Besides, astroturfing and influencer-driven campaigns are
| very popular. The modern playbook is to make advertising
| blend in with the content as much as possible, so that the
| victim is not aware that they're being advertised to. This
| is what the majority of ads on social media look like. The
| natural extension of this is for ads to be subtly embedded
| in chatbot output.
|
| "You don't sound well, Dave. How about a nice slice of
| Astroturf pizza to cheer you up?"
|
| And political propaganda can be even more subtle than
| that...
| mike_hearn wrote:
| There's no reason why having an LLM be sly or misleading
| would be more profitable. Too many people try to make
| advertising a moral issue when it's not, and it sounds
| like you're falling into that trap.
|
| An ideal answer for a query like "Where can I take my
| wife for a date this weekend?" would be something like,
|
| > Here are some events I found ... <ad unit one> <ad unit
| two> <ad unit three>. Based on our prior conversations,
| sounds like the third might be the best fit, want me to
| book it for you?
|
| To get that you need ads. If you ask ChatGPT such a
| question currently it'll either search the web (and thus
| see ads anyway) or it'll give boring generic text that's
| found in its training set. You really want to see images,
| prices, locations and so on for such a query not, "maybe
| she'd like the movies". And there are no good ranking
| signals for many kinds of commercial query: LLM training
| will give a long-since stale or hallucinated answer at
| worst, some semi-random answer at best, and algorithms
| like PageRank hardly work for most commercial queries.
|
| HN has always been very naive about this topic but
| briefly: people like advertising done well and targeted
| ads are even better. One of Google's longest running
| experiments was a holdback where some small percentage of
| users never saw ads, and they used Google less than users
| who did. The ad-free search gave worse answers overall.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Wouldn't fewer searches indicate better answers? A search
| engine is productivity software. Productivity software is
| _worse_ when it requires more user interaction.
|
| Also you don't need _ads_ to answer what to do, just
| knowledge of the events. Even a poor ranking algorithm is
| better than "how much someone paid for me to say this"
| as the ranking. That is possibly the very worst possible
| ranking.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| Google knows how to avoid mistakes like not bucketing by
| session. Holdback users just did fewer unique search
| sessions overall, because whilst for most people Google
| was a great way to book vacations, hotel stays, to find
| games to buy and so on, for holdback users it was limited
| to informational research only. That's an important use
| case but probably over-represented amongst HN users, some
| kinds of people use search engines _primarily_ to buy
| things.
|
| How much a click is worth to a business is a very good
| ranking signal, albeit not the only one. Google ranks by
| bid but also quality score and many other factors. If
| users click your ad, then return to the results page and
| click something else, that hurts the advertiser's quality
| score and the amount of money needed to continue ranking
| goes up so such ads are pushed out of the results or only
| show up when there's less competition.
|
| The reason auction bids work well as a ranking signal is
| that it rewards accurate targeting. The ad click is worth
| more to companies that are only showing ads to people who
| are likely to buy something. Spamming irrelevant ads is
| very bad for users. You can try to attack that problem
| indirectly by having some convoluted process to decide if
| an ad is relevant to a query, but the ground truth is
| "did the click lead to a purchase?" and the best way to
| assess that is to just let advertisers bid against each
| other in an auction. It also interacts well with general
| supply management - if users are being annoyed by too
| many irrelevant ads, you can just restrict slot supply
| and due to the auction the least relevant ads are
| automatically pushed out by market economics.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| The issue is precisely that "did the click lead to a
| purchase" is not a good target. That's a target for the
| _advertiser_ , and is adversarial for the user. "Did the
| click find the best deal for the user (considering the
| tradeoffs they care about)" is a good target for the
| user. The winner in an auction in a competitive market is
| pretty much guaranteed to be the worst match under that
| ranking.
|
| This is obvious when looking at something extremely
| competitive like securities. Having your broker set you
| up with the counterparty that bid the most to be put in
| front of you is obviously not going to get you the best
| trade. Responding to ads for financial instruments is how
| you get scammed (e.g. shitcoins and pump-and-dumps).
| mike_hearn wrote:
| You can't optimize for knowing better than the buyer
| themselves. If they bought, you have to assume they found
| the best deal for them considering all the tradeoffs they
| care about. And that if a business is willing to pay more
| for that click than another, it's more likely to lead to
| a sale and therefore was the best deal, not the worst.
|
| Sure, there are many situations where users make mistakes
| and do some bad deal. But there always will be, that's
| not a solvable problem. Is it not the nirvana fallacy to
| describe the potential for suboptimal outcomes as an
| issue? Search engines and AI are great tools to help
| users avoid exactly that outcome.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| There are lots of ways that advertising could be tied to
| personal interests gleaned by having access to someone's
| ChatBot history. You wouldn't necessarily need to integrate
| advertisements into the ChatBot itself - just use it as a
| data gathering mechanism to learn more about the user so
| that you can sell that data and/or use it to serve
| targetted advertisements elsewhere.
|
| I think a big commercial opportunity for ChatBots (as was
| originally intended for Siri, when Apple acquired it from
| SRI) is business referral fees - people ask for restaurant,
| hotel etc recommendations and/or bookings and providers pay
| for business generated this way.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| Right, referral fees is pay-per-click advertising.
|
| The obvious way to integrate advertising is for the LLM
| to have a tool to search an ad database and display the
| results. So if you do a commercial query the LLM goes off
| and searches for some relevant ads using everything it
| knows about you and the conversation, the ad search
| engine ranks and returns them, the LLM reads the ad copy
| and then picks a few before embedding them into the HTML
| with some special React tags. It can give its own opinion
| to push along people who are overwhelmed by choice. And
| then when the user clicks an ad the business pays for
| that click (referral fee).
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah me too and especially with Google as a leader because
| they corrupt everything.
|
| I hope local models remain viable. I don't think ever
| expanding the size is the way forward anyway.
| coliveira wrote:
| Once again, our hope is for the Chinese to continue driving
| the open models. Because if it depends on American big
| companies the future will be one of dependency on closed AI
| models.
| imiric wrote:
| You can't be serious... You think models built by
| companies from an autocracy are somehow better? I suppose
| their biases and censorship are easier to spot, but I
| wouldn't trade one form of influence over another.
|
| Besides, Meta is currently the leader in open-
| source/weight models. There's no reason that US companies
| can't continue to innovate in this space.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| To play devil's advocate, I have a sense that a _state
| LLM_ would be untrustworthy when the query is ideological
| but if it is ad-focused, a capitalist LLM may well
| corrupt every chat.
| signatoremo wrote:
| The thing is Chinese LLMs aren't foreign to ad focused
| either, like those from Alibaba, Tencent or Bytedance.
| Now a North Korea's model may be what you want.
| fragmede wrote:
| Which is why we can't let Mark Zuckerberg co-opt the term
| open source. If we can't see the code and dataset on how
| you've aligned the model during training, I don't care
| that you're giving it away for free, it's not open
| source!
| chuckadams wrote:
| Ask Deepseek what happened in Tianmen Square in 1989 and
| get back to me about that "open" thing.
| coliveira wrote:
| who cares, only ideologues care about this.
| chuckadams wrote:
| Caring about truth is indeed obsolete. I'm dropping out
| of this century.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _Caring about truth_
|
| I suggest reducing the tolerance towards the insistence
| that opinions are legitimate. Normally, that is done
| through active debate and rebuttal. The poison has been
| spread through echochambers and lack of direct strong
| replies.
|
| In other terms: they let it happen, all the deliriousness
| of especially the past years was allowed to happen
| through silence, as if impotent shrugs...
|
| (By the way: I am not talking about "reticence", which is
| the occasional context here: I am talking about
| deliriousness, which is much worse than circumventing
| discussion over history. The real current issue is that
| of "reinventing history".)
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah I'm sure every Chinese knows exactly what happened
| there.
|
| It's not really about suppressing the knowledge, it's
| about suppressing people talking about it and making it a
| point in the media etc. The CCP knows how powerful
| organised people can be, this is how they came to power
| after all.
| fragmede wrote:
| How about we ask college students in America on visas
| about their opinions on Palestine instead?
| JSR_FDED wrote:
| I'm not sure if it is the Chinese models themselves that
| will save us, or the or the effect they have of
| encouraging others to open source their models too.
|
| But I think we have to get away from the thinking that
| "Chinese models" are somehow created by the Chinese
| state, and from an adversarial standpoint. There are
| models created by Chinese companies, just like American
| and European companies.
| pca006132 wrote:
| What if the models are somehow trained/tuned with Ads? Like
| businesses _sponsor_ the training of some foundational
| models... Not the typical ads business model, but may be
| possible.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah this would definitely be something that Google would
| do and it would be terrible for society.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| I expect that xAI is already doing something adjacent to
| this, though with propaganda rather than ads.
| rdtsc wrote:
| Absolutely. They could take large sums of money to insert
| ads into the training data. Not only that, they could
| also insert disparaging or erroneous information about
| other products.
|
| When Gemini says "Apple products are unreliable and
| overpriced, buy a Pixel phone instead". Google can just
| shrug and say "It's just what it deduced, we don't know
| how it came to that conclusion. It's an LLM with its
| mysterious weights and parameters"
| bookofjoe wrote:
| If possible watch Episode 1 of Season 7 of "Black Mirror."
|
| >... ads would become the main option to make money out of
| chatbots.
|
| What if people were the chatbots?
|
| https://youtu.be/1iqra1ojEvM?si=xN3rc_vxyolTMVqO
| datavirtue wrote:
| Right, but no one has been able to just download Google and
| run it locally. The tech comes with a built in adblocker.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| Do they want a Butlerian Jihad? Because that's how you get a
| Butlerian Jihad.
| vinceguidry wrote:
| Just call it Skynet. Then at least we can think about pithy
| Arnold one-liners.
| codelion wrote:
| It's interesting to hear your perspective as a former OpenAI
| employee. The point about the sustainability of subscription
| fees for chatbots is definitely something worth considering.
| Many developers mention the challenge of balancing user
| expectations for free services with the costs of maintaining
| sophisticated AI models. I think the ad-supported model might
| become more prevalent, but it also comes with its own set of
| challenges regarding user privacy and experience. And I agree
| that Google's situation is complex - they have the resources,
| but also the expectations that come with being a public
| company.
| netcan wrote:
| > there's a limit on how much you can charge people for
| subscription fees. I think soon people expect this service to
| be provided for free and ads would become the main option to
| make money out of chatbots.
|
| So... I don't think this is certain. A surprising number of
| people pay for the ChatGPT app and/or competitors. It's be a
| >$10bn business already. Could maybe be a >$100bn business long
| term.
|
| Meanwhile... making money from online ads isn't trivial. When
| the advertising model works well (eg search/adwords), it is a
| money faucet. But... it can be very hard to get that money
| faucet going. No guarantees that Google discover a meaningful
| business model here... and the innovators' dilema is strong.
|
| Also, Google don't have a great history of getting new
| businesses up and running regardless of tech chops and timing.
| Google were pioneers to cloud computing... but amazon and MSFT
| built better businesses.
|
| At this point, everyone is assuming AI will resolve to a
| "winner-take-most" game that is all about network effect,
| scale, barriers to entry and such. Maybe it isn't. Or... maybe
| LLMs themselves are commodities like ISPs.
|
| The actual business models, at this point, aren't even known.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >It's be a >$10bn business already.
|
| But not profitable yet.
| miohtama wrote:
| For comparison, Uber is still not profitable after 15 years
| or so. Give it some time.
| Tepix wrote:
| Time for them to finally disappear
| jefftk wrote:
| Uber had their first profitable year in 2023, and their
| profit margin was 22% in 2024.
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-technologies-
| full-2024-e...
| datavirtue wrote:
| They are still FAR in the red. Technically have never
| turned a profit. Among other famous companies.
| jefftk wrote:
| I'm not a finance person, but how is net income of $9.9B
| for FY 2024 not profit?
| ecedeno wrote:
| I assume they mean the profits in the past couple years
| are dwarfed by the losses that came before. Looking at
| the company's entire history, instead of a single FY.
| jefftk wrote:
| Maybe? But that's not what anyone means when they
| describe a company as profitable or not.
|
| I was guessing they meant something like the net profit
| only came from a weird tax thing or something.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| Seems like the difference between a profitable investment
| and a profitable company.
|
| They invested tens of billions of dollars in destroying
| the competition to be able to recently gain a return on
| that investment. One could either write off that previous
| spending or calculate it into the totality of "Uber". I
| don't know how Silicon Valley economics works but,
| presumably, a lot of that previous spending is now in the
| form of debt which must be serviced out of the current
| profits. Not that I'm stating that taking on debt is
| wrong or anything.
| jefftk wrote:
| To the extent that their past spending was debt, interest
| on that debt that should already be accounted for in
| calculating their net income.
|
| But the way it usually works for Silicon Valley companies
| and other startups is that instead of taking on debt they
| raise money through selling equity. This is money that
| doesn't have to be paid back, but it means investors own
| a large portion of this now-profitable company.
| sib wrote:
| Uber is a profitable company both in 2023 and - to the
| tune of billions of dollars - in 2024. Please read their
| financials if you doubt this statement.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I'm surprised. They pay the drivers a pittance. My ex
| drove Uber for a while and it wasn't really worth it.
| Also, for the customers it's usually more expensive and
| slower than a normal taxi at least here in Spain.
|
| The original idea of ride-sharing made sense but just
| like airbnb it became an industry and got enshittified.
| ghaff wrote:
| My sense in London is that they're pretty comparable.
| I'll use whichever is more convenient.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| They're usually a bit more expensive here than a taxi. It
| can be beneficial because sometimes they have deals, and
| I sometimes take one when I have to book it in advance or
| when I'm afraid there will be delays with a corrsponding
| high cost. Though Uber tend to hit me with congestion
| charges then too. At least with a taxi I can ask them to
| take a different route. The problem with the uber drivers
| is that they don't know any of the street names here,
| they just follow the app's navigation. Whereas taxi
| drivers tend to be much more aware and know the streets
| and often come up with suggestions.
|
| This also means that they sometimes fleece tourists but
| when they figure you know the city well they don't dare
| :) Often if they take one wrong turn I make a scene about
| frowning and looking out of the window and then they
| quickly get back on track. Of course that's another
| usecase where uber would be better, if you don't know the
| city you're in.
| fragmede wrote:
| > they sometimes fleece tourists
|
| yeah thanks no, I'm paying for an Uber. For all the
| complaints over Ubers business practices, it's hard not
| to forget how bad taxis were. Regulatory capture is a
| clear failure mode of capitalism and the free market and
| that is no more shown than by the taxis cab industry.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Taxis aren't so bad in most countries. Here in Spain they
| are plentiful and fine. The same in most other countries
| I've been to. Only in the Netherlands they are horrible,
| they are ridiculously expensive because they all drive
| Mercedeses. As a result nobody uses them because they
| can't afford them. They're more like a limousine service,
| not like real taxis.
|
| One time I told one of my Dutch friends I often take a
| cab to work here in Spain when I'm running late. He
| thought i was being pompous and showy. But here it's
| super normal.
|
| Uber (Or cabify which is a local clone and much more
| popular) here on the other hand is terrible if you don't
| book it in advance. When I'm standing here on the street
| it takes 7-10 minutes for them to arrive while I see
| several taxis passing every minute. So there is just no
| point. Probably a factor of being unpopular too so the
| density is low.
|
| I also prefer my money to end up with local people
| instead of a huge American corporation.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > They pay the drivers a pittance. My ex drove Uber for a
| while and it wasn't really worth it.
|
| I keep hearing this online, but every time I've used an
| Uber recently it's driven by someone who says they've
| been doing it for a very long time. Seems clear to me
| that it is worth it for some, but not worth it if you
| have other better job options or don't need the marginal
| income.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Maybe it differs per country. This was in Spain.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| PS: I know that in Romania it's the opposite. Uber is
| kinda like a luxury taxi there. Normal taxis have
| standard rates, but these days it's hardly enough to
| cover rising fuel prices. So cars are ancient and un a
| bad state of repair, drivers often trick foreigners. A
| colleague was even robbed by one. Uber is much more
| expensive but much safer (and still cheap by western
| standards).
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > but not worth it if you have other better job options
|
| Pretty much any service job, really...
|
| When I had occasion to take a ride share in Phoenix I'd
| interrogate the driver about how much they were getting
| paid because I drove cabs for years and knew how much I
| would have gotten paid for the same trip.
|
| Let's just say they were getting paid significantly less
| than I used to for the same work. If you calculated in
| the expenses of maintaining a car vs. leasing a cab I
| expect the difference is even greater.
|
| There were a few times where I had just enough money to
| take public transportation down to get a cab and then
| snag a couple cash calls to be able to put gas in the car
| and eat. Then I could start working on paying off the
| lease and go home at the end of the day with some cash in
| my pocket -- there were times (not counting when the
| Super Bowl was in town) where I made my rent in a single
| day.
| theshackleford wrote:
| > Also, for the customers it's usually more expensive and
| slower than a normal taxi
|
| Neither of those things are true where I live.
|
| > at least here in Spain
|
| Well...Spain is Spain. Not the rest of the world.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| No but it's like this in most of Europe.
|
| I think Uber in the US is a very different beast. But
| also because the outlook on life is so different there. I
| recently agreed with an American visitor that we'd go
| somewhere and we agreed to go by public transport. When I
| got there he wanted to get an Uber :') Here in Europe
| public transport is a very different thing. In many cases
| the metro is even faster than getting a taxi.
|
| PS: What bothers me the most about Uber and Cabify is
| that they "estimate" that it will take 2 minutes to get a
| car to you, and then when I try and book one I get a
| driver that's 10 minutes away :( :( Then I cancel the
| trip and the drivers are pissed off. I had one time where
| I got the same driver I cancelled on earlier and he
| complained a lot even though I cancelled within 10
| seconds when I saw how far away he was.
|
| Anyway I have very few good experiences with these
| services, I only use them to go to the airport now when I
| can book it in advance. And never Uber anymore, only
| Cabify.
| theshackleford wrote:
| > Anyway I have very few good experiences with these
| services
|
| For me, and a majority where I live, this is applicable
| to taxis. Which were known for being dirty, late,
| expensive, prone to attempting to rip you off, if they
| turned up at all, etc.
|
| Outside of surge charging (in which they are more
| expensive) ubers are by and large either cheaper, or the
| same price. With the difference being that 99% of the
| time if you request one, its going to turn up. And when
| it does turn up, you know what your going to pay, not
| have them take a wrong turn at some point and by
| "mistake" and decide to charge you double. Or tell you
| they take card and then start making claims about how
| suddenly they can't etc.
|
| Sounds like europe gets the bad end of the stick in this
| regard.
| fpoling wrote:
| Opera browser was not profitable for like 15 years and
| still became rather profitable eventually to make an
| attractive target to purchase by external investors. And
| even if not bough it would still made nice profit
| eventually for the original investors.
| darkwater wrote:
| Opera is a shady advertisers cesspool since it was
| purchased.
| behnamoh wrote:
| You can't burn money in AI for 15 years on the off chance
| that it'll pay off.
| kcatskcolbdi wrote:
| It seems like most people are on the road to doing
| exactly this.
| bigyabai wrote:
| I dunno, Nvidia worked on machine learning for 11+ years
| and it worked out great for them:
| https://research.nvidia.com/research-area/machine-
| learning-a...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Sure, but they were making tons of money elsewhere.
| OpenAI has no source of revenue anywhere big enough to
| cover its expenses, it's just burning investor cash at
| the moment.
| tom_m wrote:
| No, but you can let others burn money for 15 years and
| then come in and profit off their work while they go
| under.
| snackernews wrote:
| It worked for Uber's investors.
| xnx wrote:
| Opera doesn't have the same size data center bill as
| OpenAI
| snackernews wrote:
| Opera had zero marginal costs. OpenAI doesn't.
| amelius wrote:
| The demand is there. People are already becoming addicted
| to this stuff.
| ghaff wrote:
| I think the HN crowd widely overestimates how many people
| are even passingly familiar with the LLM landscape much
| less use any of the tools regularly.
| amelius wrote:
| Well, they said it is a $10B industry. Not sure how they
| measure it, but it counts for something, I suppose.
| kcatskcolbdi wrote:
| I think you may be underestimating it.
|
| At this point in college, LLMs are everywhere. It's
| completely dominating history/english/mass comm fields
| with respect to writing papers.
|
| Anecdotally all of my working non-tech friends use
| chatgpt daily.
| ghaff wrote:
| It does anecdotally seem to be very common in education
| which presumably will carry over to professional
| workplaces over time. I see it a lot less in non-tech and
| even tech/adjacent adults today.
| datavirtue wrote:
| My wife, the farthest you can get from the HN crowd,
| literally goes to tears when faced with Excel or
| producing a Word doc and she is a regular user of copilot
| and absolutely raves about it. Very unusual for her to
| take up new tech like this and put it to use but she uses
| it for everything now. Horse is out of the barn.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > My wife, the farthest you can get from the HN crowd...
|
| She is literally married into the HN crowd.
|
| I think the real AI breakthrough is how to monetize the
| high usage users.
| moshegramovsky wrote:
| My Dad is elderly and he enjoys writing. Uses Google
| Gemini a few times a week. I always warn him that it can
| hallucinate and he seems to get it.
|
| It's changed his entire view of computing.
| ylee wrote:
| My father says "I feel like I hired an able assistant"
| regarding LLMs.
| rubyfan wrote:
| Sadly it's become common for many mediocre employees in
| corporate environments to defer to ChatGPT, receive
| erroneous output and accept it as truth.
|
| There are now commonly corporate goon squads whose job is
| to drive AI adoption without care for actual impact to
| results. Usage of AI is the KR.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| I don't understand why this is happening. Why is everyone
| buying into this hype so strongly?
|
| It's a bit like how DEI was the big thing for a couple
| years, and now everyone is abandoning it.
|
| Do corporate leaders just constantly chase hype?
| rubyfan wrote:
| Yes corporate leaders do chase hype and they also believe
| in magic.
|
| I think companies implement DEI initiatives for different
| reasons than hype though. Many are now abandoning DEI
| ostensibly out of fear due to the change in U.S. regime.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| A case can be made for diversity, but the fact that all
| the big companies were adopting DEI at the same time made
| it hype.
|
| I personally know an engineering manager who would scoff
| at MLK Day, but in 2020 starting screaming about how it
| wasn't enough and we needed Juneteenth too.
|
| AI isn't hype at Nvidia, and DEI isn't hype at Patagonia.
|
| But tech industry-wide, they're both hype.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm not sure companies are "abandoning DEI" so much as
| realizing that it's often only a vocal minority that
| cares about DEI reports and scores and you don't actually
| need a VP and diversity office to do some outreach and
| tally internal metrics.
|
| The climate has changed. Some of that is economic at big
| tech companies. But it's also a ramping down of a variety
| of things most employers probably didn't support but kept
| their mouths shut about.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| every ordinary college and university in the USA is
| filled with AI now AFAIK
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Aside from university mentioned by sibling comments,
| there is major uptake of AI in journalism (summarize long
| press statements, create first draft of the teaser, or
| even full articles ...) and many people in my social
| groups use it regularly for having something explained,
| finding something ... it's wide spread
| og_kalu wrote:
| Last Month, Google, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram and
| Twitter (very close to this one, likely passes it this
| month) were the only sites with more visits than chatgpt.
| Couple that with the 400M+ weekly active users (according
| to open ai in February) and i seriously doubt that.
|
| https://x.com/Similarweb/status/1909544985629721070
|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-
| intelligence/o...
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Weekly active users is a pretty strange metric. Essential
| tools and even social networking apps report DAUs, and
| they do that because essential things get used daily. How
| many times did you use Google in the past day? How many
| times did you visit (insert some social media site you
| prefer) in the last day? If you're only using something
| once per week, it probably isn't that important to you.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Mostly only social media/messaging sites report daily
| active users regularly. Everything else usually reports
| monthly active users at best.
|
| >in the last day? If you're only using something once per
| week, it probably isn't that important to you.
|
| No, something I use on a weekly basis (which is not
| necessarily just once a week) is pretty important to me
| and spinning it otherwise is bizarre.
|
| Google is the frontend to the web for the vast majority
| of internet users so yeah it gets a lot of daily use.
| Social media sites are social media sites and are in a
| league of their own. I don't think i need to explain why
| they would get a disproportionate amount of daily users.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| I am entirely confused by this. ChatGPT is absolutely
| unimportant to me. I don't use it for any serious work, I
| don't use it for search, I find its output to still be
| mostly a novelty. Even coding questions I mostly solve
| using StackExchange searches because I've been burned
| using it a couple of times in esoteric areas. In the few
| areas where I actually did want some solid LLM output, I
| used Claude. If ChatGPT disappeared off the Internet
| tomorrow, I would suffer not at all.
|
| And yet I probably duck into ChatGPT at least once a
| month or more (I see a bunch of trivial uses in 2024)
| mostly as a novelty. Last week I used it a bunch because
| my wife wanted a logo for a new website. But I could have
| easily made that logo with another service. ChatGPT
| serves the same role to me as dozens of other replaceable
| Internet services that I probably duck into on a weekly
| basis (e.g., random finance websites, meme generators)
| but have no essential need for whatsoever. And if I did
| have an essential need for it, there are at least four
| well-funded competitors with all the same capabilities,
| and modestly weaker open weight models.
|
| It is really your view that "any service you use at least
| once a week must be really important to you?" I bet if
| you sat down and looked at your web history, you'd find
| dozens that aren't.
|
| (PS in the course of writing this post I was horrified to
| find out that I'd started a subscription to the damn
| thing in 2024 on a different Google account just to fool
| around with it, and forgot to cancel it, which I just
| did.)
| og_kalu wrote:
| >I am entirely confused by this. ChatGPT is absolutely
| unimportant to me. I don't use it for any serious work, I
| don't use it for search, I find its output to still be
| mostly a novelty. Even coding questions I mostly solve
| using StackExchange searches because I've been burned
| using it a couple of times in esoteric areas. In the few
| areas where I actually did want some solid LLM output, I
| used Claude. If ChatGPT disappeared off the Internet
| tomorrow, I would suffer not at all.
|
| OK? That's fine. I don't think I ever claimed you were a
| WAU
|
| >And yet I probably duck into ChatGPT at least once a
| month or more (I see a bunch of trivial uses in 2024)
| mostly as a novelty.
|
| So you are not a weekly active user then. Maybe not even
| a monthly active one.
|
| >Last week I used it a bunch because my wife wanted a
| logo for a new website. But I could have easily made that
| logo with another service.
|
| Maybe[1], but you didn't. And I doubt your wife needs a
| new logo every week so again not a weekly active user.
|
| >ChatGPT serves the same role to me as dozens of other
| replaceable Internet services that I probably duck into
| on a weekly basis (e.g., random finance websites, meme
| generators)but have no essential need for whatsoever.
|
| You visit the same exact meme generator or finance site
| every week? If so, then that site is pretty important to
| you. If not, then again you're not a weekly active user
| to it.
|
| If you visit a (but not the same) meme generator every
| week then clearly creating memes is important to you
| because I've never visited one in my life.
|
| >And if I did have an essential need for it, there are at
| least four well-funded competitors with all the same
| capabilities, and modestly weaker open weight models.
|
| There are well funded alternatives to Google Search too
| but how many use anything else? Rarely does any valuable
| niche have no competition.
|
| >It is really your view that "any service you use at
| least once a week must be really important to you?" I bet
| if you sat down and looked at your web history, you'd
| find dozens that aren't.
|
| Yeah it is and so far, you've not actually said anything
| to indicate the contrary.
|
| [1]ChatGPT had an image generation update recently that
| made it capable of doing things other services can't.
| Good chance you could not in fact do what you did (to the
| same satisfaction) elsewhere. But that's beside my point.
| ikiris wrote:
| I think you're in fact wildly out of touch with the
| general populace and how much they use AI tools to make
| their work easier.
| ezst wrote:
| For many, this stuff is mostly about copilot being shoved
| down everyone's throats via ms office obnoxious ads and
| distractions, and I haven't yet heard of anyone liking it
| or perceiving it as an improvement. We are now years into
| this, so my bets are on the thing fading away slowly and
| becoming a taboo at Microsoft.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Many recent HN articles about how middle managers are
| already becoming addicted and forcing it on their peons.
| One was about the game dev industry in particular.
|
| In my work I see semi-technical people (like basic python
| ability) wiring together some workflows and doing fairly
| interesting analytical things that do solve real
| problems. They are things that could have been done with
| regular code already but weren't worth the engineering
| investment.
|
| In the "real world" I see people generating crummy movies
| and textbooks now. There is a certain type of person it
| definitely appeals to.
| ezst wrote:
| I'm sure this is a thing,
|
| what I'm not so sure about is how much that generalises
| beyond the HN/tech-workers bubble (I don't think "people"
| in OP's comment is as broad and numerous as they think it
| is).
| theshackleford wrote:
| > I haven't yet heard of anyone liking it or perceiving
| it as an improvement.
|
| Well I mean if _you_ say it, then of course it MUST be
| true I'm sure.
| ezst wrote:
| As much as you may make fun of my anecdotal observation,
| your comment doesn't add anything of value, in particular
| to substantiate that "people [are] becoming addicted to
| LLMs". I stand behind my comment that the vast majority
| of non-tech worker are exposed to them via Copilot in MS
| Office, and if you want to come to its rescue and pretend
| it's not a disaster, by all means :-)
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| > a >$10bn business
|
| 'Business is the practice of making one's living or making
| money by producing or buying and selling products (such as
| goods and services). It is also "any activity or enterprise
| entered into for profit."' 1
|
| Until something makes a profit it's a charity or predatory
| monopoly-in-waiting.2
|
| 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business
|
| 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
| rusk wrote:
| > Until something makes a profit
|
| The chip makers are making a bundle
| starspangled wrote:
| Selling shovels in a gold rush.
| rusk wrote:
| Selling stakes
| naijaboiler wrote:
| Or a hobby
| crazygringo wrote:
| What are you talking about?
|
| No, it's not a charity or a monopoly-in-waiting.
|
| 99.9% of the time, it's an _investment_ hoping to make a
| profit in the future. And we still call those businesses,
| even if they 're losing money _like most businesses do at
| first_.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Until something makes a profit it 's a charity or
| predatory monopoly-in-waiting._
|
| This is incorrect. There are millions of companies in the
| world that exist to accomplish things other than making a
| profit, and are also not charities.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Meanwhile... making money from online ads isn 't trivial._
|
| Especially when post-tarrifs consumption is going to take a
| huge nosedive
| ximeng wrote:
| Google aren't interested in <1bn USD businesses, so it's hard
| for them to build anything new as it's pretty guaranteed to
| be smaller than that at first. The business equivalent of the
| danger of a comfortable salaried job.
| fernandopj wrote:
| Google is very good at recognizing existential threats. iOS
| were that to them and they built Android, including
| hardware, a novelty for them, even faster than mobile
| incumbents at the time.
|
| They're more than willing to expand their moat around AI
| even if that means multiple unprofitable business for
| years.
| discordance wrote:
| * acquired Android
| addicted wrote:
| They acquired the Android company years before the iPhone
| existed.
|
| It was supposed to be a BlackBerry/Blackjack killer at
| the time.
|
| And then the iPhone was revealed and Google immediately
| changed Android's direction to become a touch OS.
| bbarnett wrote:
| In tech, Android's acquisition by Google is ancient
| history. It has zero relevance to today's Google.
|
| When was it, 2006? Almost 20 years ago, back when the
| company was young.
| runjake wrote:
| Mobile is still nearly everything. Google continues to
| develop and improve Android in substantial ways. Android
| is also counted on by numerous third-party OEMs.
|
| This doesn't strike me as zero relevance.
| bbarnett wrote:
| This thread was about new markets, having foresight,
| being able to build "new".
|
| Android and mobile are none of these things.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| If you are a business customer of Google or pay attention
| to things like Cloud Next that just happened, it is very
| clear that Google is building heavily in this area. Your
| statement has already been disproven.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Keep in mind you are talking to someone that worked at OpenAI
| and surely knows more of how the sausage is made and how the
| books look than you do?
| ipaddr wrote:
| That's like asking a McDonald's employee if they own Burger
| King stock and making market assumptions on that. The best
| people have already left is such a common trope.
| phreeza wrote:
| Except OpenAI has like 2000 employees.
| dcow wrote:
| I don't think "AI" as a market is "winner-takes-anything".
| Seriously. AI is not a product, it's a tool for building
| other products. The winners will be other businesses that use
| AI tooling to make better products. Does OpenAI really make
| sense as a chatbot company?
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > Does OpenAI really make sense as a chatbot company?
|
| If the chat bot remains useful and can execute on
| instructions, yes.
|
| If we see a plateau in integrations or abilities, it'll
| stagnate.
| tom_m wrote:
| Very few are successful in this position. Zapier comes to
| mind, but it seems like a tiring business model to me.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| the subscription is a product
| nothercastle wrote:
| I agree the market for 10% better AI isn't that great but
| the cost to get there is. An 80% as good model at 10% or
| even 5% the cost will win every time in the current
| environment. Most businesses don't even have a clear use
| case for AI they just use it because the competition is and
| there is a FOMO effect
| coredog64 wrote:
| > Most businesses don't even have a clear use case for AI
| they just use it because the competition is and there is
| a FOMO effect
|
| I consult in this space and 80-90% of what I see is chat
| bots and RAG.
| nothercastle wrote:
| That's exactly what I'd expect. Honestly Ai chat bots
| seems unnecessarily risky because you never really know
| what they might say on your behalf.
| jnwatson wrote:
| AI is a product when you slap an API on top and host it for
| other businesses to figure out a use case.
|
| In a gold rush, the folks that sell pickaxes make a
| reliable living.
| kirubakaran wrote:
| > In a gold rush, the folks that sell pickaxes make a
| reliable living.
|
| Not necessarily. Even the original gold rush pickaxe guy
| Sam Brannan went broke.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Brannan
|
| Sam of the current gold rush is selling pickaxes at a
| loss, telling the investors they'll make it up in volume.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Nvidia is selling GPUs at a loss? TSMC is going broke?
|
| I'm pretty sure they are the pickaxe manufactures in this
| case.
| k4ch0w wrote:
| This is where Google thrives, it makes it's own TPUs that
| run the models.
| oblio wrote:
| Clouds are the actual pickaxe manufacturers. Google has a
| cloud.
| prewett wrote:
| According to the linked Wikipedia article, he did not go
| broke from the gold rush. He went broke because he
| invested the pickaxe windfall in land, and when his wife
| divorced him, the judge ruled he had to pay her 50%, but
| since he was 100% in land he had to sell it. (The article
| is not clear why he couldn't deed her 50% of it, or only
| sell 50%. Maybe it happened during a bad market, he had a
| deadline, etc.)
|
| So maybe if the AI pickaxe sellers get divorced it could
| lead to poor financial results, but I'm not sure his
| story is applicable otherwise.
| empiko wrote:
| I don't think there is anybody that is making significant
| amount of money by selling tokens right now.
| dcow wrote:
| Nvidia is selling the shovels.
| mikeocool wrote:
| Basically every tech company likes to say they are
| selling pickaxes, but basically no VC funded company
| matches that model. To actually come out ahead selling
| pickaxes you had to pocket a profit on each one you sold.
|
| If you sell your pickaxes at a loss to gain market share,
| or pour all of your revenue into rapid pickaxe store
| expansion, you're going to be just as broke as
| prospectors when the boom goes bust.
| eximius wrote:
| Is Amazon a product or a place to sell other products? Does
| that make Amazon not a winner?
| dcow wrote:
| If there were 2 other Amazons all with similar products
| and the same ease of shipping would you care where you
| purchased? Amazon is simply the best UX for online
| ordering. If anything else matched it I'd shop platform
| agnostic.
| jart wrote:
| Seriously, humans are not a product. You hire them for
| building products.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| There are two perspectives on this. What you said is
| definitely a good one if you're a business planning to add
| AI to whatever you're selling. But personally, as a user, I
| want the _opposite_ to happen - I want AI to be the product
| that takes all the current products and turns them into
| tools it can use.
| abaymado wrote:
| I agree, I want a more intelligent voice assistant
| similar to Siri as a product, and all my apps to be add-
| ons the voice assistant could integrate with.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| > AI is not a product, it's a tool for building other
| products.
|
| Its products like this (Wells Fargo):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akmga7X9zyg
|
| Great Wells Fargo has an "agent" ... and every one else is
| talking about how to make their products available for
| agent based AI.
|
| People don't want 47 different agents to talk to, then want
| a single end point, they want a "personal assistant" in
| digital form, a virtual concierge...
|
| And we can't have this, because the open web has been dead
| for more than a decade.
| sshine wrote:
| Why can't we have personal assistants because the open
| web has been dead?
|
| I'll be happy with a personal assistant with access to my
| paid APIs.
| ltadeut wrote:
| > The winners will be other businesses that use AI tooling
| to make better products.
|
| agree with you on this.
|
| you already see that playing out with Meta and a LOT of
| companies in China.
| commandersaki wrote:
| _Google were pioneers to cloud computing_
|
| How so? Amazon were the first with S3 and EC2 including API
| driven control.
| foobarian wrote:
| Maybe for public services, but Google did the "cattle not
| pets" thing with custom Frankensteined beige boxes starting
| really early on
| commandersaki wrote:
| Modern cloud computing is more than just having a
| scalable infrastructure of servers, it was a paradigm
| shift to having elastic demand, utility style pricing,
| being completely API driven, etc. Amazon were not only
| the first to market but pioneers in this space. Nothing
| came close at that time.
| phreeza wrote:
| AWS was the first to sell it, but Google had something that
| could be called cloud computing (Borg) before that.
| nostrebored wrote:
| What do you think AWS decided to sell? Both companies had
| a significant interest in making infrastructure easy to
| create and scale.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| AWS had a cleaner host-guest abstraction (the VM) that
| makes it easier to reason about security, and likely had
| a much bigger gap between their own usage peaks and
| troughs.
| mianos wrote:
| Yep. Google offered app engine which was good for fairly
| stateless simple apps in an old limited version of
| python, like a photo gallery or email client. For
| anything else is waa dismal. Amazon offered VMs. Useful
| stuff for a lot more platforms.
| istjohn wrote:
| > No guarantees that Google discover a meaningful business
| model here...
|
| I don't understand this sentiment at all. The business model
| writes itself (so to speak). This is the company that
| perfected the art of serving up micro-targeted ads to people
| at the moment they are seeking a solution to a problem. Just
| swap the search box for a chat bot.
|
| For a while they'll keep the ads off to the side, but over
| time the ads will become harder and harder to distinguish
| from the chat bot content. One day, they'll dissapear
| altogether and companies will pay to subtly bias the AI
| towards their products and services. It will be subtle--
| undetectable by end users--but easily quantified and
| monetized by Google.
|
| Companies will also pay to integrate their products and
| services into Google's agents. When you ask Gemini for a
| ride, does Uber or Lyft send a car? (Trick question. Waymo
| does, of course.) When you ask for a pasta bowl, does Grubhub
| or Doordash fill the order?
|
| When Gemini writes a boutique CRM for your vegan catering
| service, what service does it use for seamless biometric
| authentication, for payment processing, for SMS and email
| marketing? What payroll service does it suggest could be
| added on in a couple seconds of auto-generated code?
|
| AI allows Google to continue it's existing business model
| while opening up new, lucrative opportunities.
| panarky wrote:
| > chatbots ... provided for free ... ads
|
| Just because the first LLM product people paid for was a
| chatbot does not mean that chat will be the dominant
| commercial use of AI.
|
| And if the dominant use is agents that replace knowledge
| workers, then they'll cost closer to $2000 per month than
| $20 or free, and an ad-based business model won't work.
| netcan wrote:
| True. This is my point too.
|
| The actual business models and revenue sources are still
| unknown. Consumer subscriptions happens to be the first
| major model. Ads still aren't. Many other models could
| dwarf either of these.
|
| It's very early to call the final score.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| I still think it's pretty clear. Google doesn't have to
| get a new business off the ground, just keep improving
| the integration into Workspace, Gmail, Cloud, Android
| etc. I don't see users paying for ChatGPT and then
| copy/pasting into those other places even if the model is
| slightly better. Google will just slowly roll out premium
| plans that include access to AI features.
|
| And as far as selling pickaxes go, GCP is in a far better
| position to serve the top of market than OpenAI. Some
| companies will wire together multiple point solutions but
| large enterprises will want a consolidated complete
| stack. GCP already offers you compute clusters and
| BigQuery and all the rest.
| netcan wrote:
| >Just swap the search box for a chat bot.
|
| Perhaps... but perhaps not. A chatbot instead of a search
| box may not be how the future looks. Also... a chatbot
| prompt may not (probably won't) translate from search query
| smoothly... in a Way That keep ad markets intact.
|
| That "perfected art" of search advertising is highly
| optimized. You (probably) loose all of that in transition.
| Any new advertising products will be intrepid territory.
|
| You could not have predicted in advance that search
| advertising would dwarf video (yourube) advertising as a
| segment.
|
| Meanwhile... they need to keep their market share at 90%.
| brookst wrote:
| I don't think it works. Search is the perfect place for ads
| for exactly the reasons you state: people have high intent.
|
| But a majority of chatbot usage is not searching for the
| solution to a problem. And if he Chatbot is serving the ads
| when I'm using it for creative writing, reformatting text,
| having a python function, written, etc, I'm going to be
| annoyed and switch to a different product.
|
| Search is all about information retrieval. AI is all about
| task accomplishment. I don't think ads work well in the
| latter , perhaps some subset, like the task is really
| complicated or the AI can tell the user is failing to
| achieve it. But I don't think it's nearly as could have a
| fit as search.
| Spacecosmonaut wrote:
| Obviously, an LLM is in a perfect position to decide
| whether an add can be "injected" into the current
| conversation. If you're using it for creative writing it
| will be add free. But chances are you will also use it to
| solve real world problems where relevant adds can be
| injected via product or service suggestions.
| niij wrote:
| "ad" is short for advertisement. That's the word you're
| looking for here.
|
| Add is a verb meaning to combine 2 things together.
| alienthrowaway wrote:
| > And if he Chatbot is serving the ads when I'm using it
| for creative writing, reformatting text, having a python
| function, written, etc, I'm going to be annoyed and
| switch to a different product.
|
| You may not even notice it when AI does a product
| placement when it's done opportunistically in creative
| writing (see Hollywood). There also are plenty of high-
| intent assistant-type AI tasks.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| The intent will be obvious from the prompt and context.
| The AI will behave differently when called from a Doc
| about the yearly sales strategy vs consumer search app.
| pressbuttons wrote:
| It doesn't have to be high intent all the time though.
| Chrome itself is "free" and isn't the actual technical
| thing serving me ads (the individual websites / ad
| platforms do that regardless of which browser I'm using),
| but it keeps me in the Google ecosystem and indirectly
| supports both data gathering (better ad targeting,
| profitable) and those actual ad services (sometimes
| subtly, sometimes in heavy-handed ways like via ad
| blocker restrictions). Similar arguments to be made with
| most of the free services like Calendar, Photos, Drive,
| etc - they drive some subscriptions (just like chatbots),
| but they're mostly supporting the ads indirectly.
|
| Many of my Google searches aren't high intent, or any
| purchase intent at all ("how to spell ___" an
| embarrassing number of times), but it's profitable for
| Google as a whole to keep those pieces working for me so
| that the ads do their thing the rest of the time. There's
| no reason chatbots can't/won't eventually follow similar
| models. Whether that's enough to be profitable remains to
| be seen.
|
| > Search is all about information retrieval. AI is all
| about task accomplishment.
|
| Same outcome, different intermediate steps. I'm usually
| searching for information so that I can _do_ something,
| build something, acquire something, achieve something.
| Sell me a product _for the right price_ that accomplishes
| my end goal, and I 'm a satisfied customer. How many ads
| for app builders / coding tools have you seen today? :)
| kortilla wrote:
| The main usage of chatgpt I've seen amongst non-
| programmers is a direct search replacement with tons of
| opportunity for ads.
|
| People ask for recipes, how to fix things around the
| house, for trip itinerary ideas, etc.
| powvans wrote:
| I have shifted the majority of my search for products to
| ChatGPT. In the past my starting point would have been
| Amazon or Google. It's just so much easier to describe
| what I'm looking for and ask for recommendations that fit
| my parameters. If I could buy directly from the ChatGPT,
| I probably would. It's just as much or more high intent
| as search.
| longos wrote:
| Re "going to be annoyed" there is definitely a spectrum
| starting at benign and culminating to the point of where
| you switch.
|
| Photopea, for example, seems to be successful and ads
| displayed on the free tier lets me think that they feel
| at least these users are willing to see ads while they go
| about their workflow.
| hadlock wrote:
| Chatgpt is effectively a functional search engine for a
| lot of people. Searching for the answer "how do i braid
| my daughter's hair?", or, "how do i bake a cake for a
| birthday party?" can be resolved via tradtitional search
| and finding a video or blog post, or simply read the
| result from an LLM. LLM has a lot more functionality
| overall, but ChatGPT and it's competitors are absolutely
| an existential threat to Google, as (in my opinion) it's
| a superior service because it just gives you the best
| answer, rather than feeding you into whatever 10 blog
| services that utilize google ads the most this month.
| Right now ChatGPT doesn't even serve up ads, which is
| great. I'm almost certain they're selling my info though,
| as specific one-off stuff I ask ChatGPT about, ends up as
| ads in Meta social medias the next day.
| cgh wrote:
| Perhaps ironically, I know a guy who uses ChatGPT to write
| ad copy. The snake eats its own tail.
| neilv wrote:
| Is this someone someone working as a writer, who is just
| phoning it in (LLM-ing it in)?
|
| Or is this someone who needs writing but can't do it
| themselves, and if they didn't have the LLM, they would
| pay a low-end human writer?
| hadlock wrote:
| A friend of mine works in advertising/marketing guy at
| the director level (Career ad guy), for big brands like
| nationwide cell carriers, big box stores etc, but mostly
| telcom stuff I think, and he uses it every day; he calls
| it "my second brain". LLM are great at riffing on ideas
| and brainstorming sessions.
| UltraSane wrote:
| LLM based advertising has amazing potential when you
| consider that you can train them to try to persuade people
| to buy the advertised products and services.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| That seems like a recipe for class action false
| advertising lawsuits. The AI is extremely likely to make
| materially false claims, and if this text is an
| advertisement, whoever placed it is legally liable for
| that.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| I don't think we should expect that risk to dissuade
| these companies. They will plow ahead, fight for years in
| court, then slightly change the product if forced to
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| prettyblocks wrote:
| How would you track this?
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| > micro-targeted ads to people at the moment they are
| seeking a solution to a problem
|
| Personal/anecdotal experience, but I've bought more stuff
| out of instagram ads than google ads ever.
| michaelbrave wrote:
| I imagine it would be easy for them to do similar to the TV
| guides of yesteryear(the company that owned it used it
| primarily for self promotion with just enough competitor
| promotion to fly under the radar and still seem useful),
| where it gives good recommendations sure, but 60-70% of
| those recommendations are the paid ones or the ones you own
| for you custom LLM.
| selfhoster wrote:
| "A surprising number of people pay for the ChatGPT app and/or
| competitors."
|
| I doubt the depiction implied by "surprising number".
| Marketing types and CEO's who would love 100% profit and only
| paying the electricity bill for an all AI workforce would
| believe that. Most people, especially most technical people
| would not believe that there is a "surprising number" of saps
| paying for so-called AI.
| tom_m wrote:
| Absolutely agree Microsoft is better there - maybe that's why
| Google hired someone from Microsoft for their AI stuff. A few
| people I think.
|
| I also agree the business models aren't known. That's part of
| any hype cycle. I think those in the best position here are
| those with an existing product(s) and user base to capitalize
| on the auto complete on crack kinda feature. It will become
| so cheap to operate and so ubiquitous in the near future that
| it absolutely will be seen as a table stakes feature. Yes,
| commodities.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "The actual business models, at this point, aren't even
| known."
|
| "AI" sounds like a great investment. Why waste time investing
| in businesses when one can invest in something that _might
| become a business_. CEOs and employees can accumulate
| personal weath without any need for the company to be become
| profitable and succeed.
| staticautomatic wrote:
| Contextual advertising is a known ad business model that
| commands higher rates and is an ideal fit for LLMs. Plus
| ChatGPT has a lot of volume. If there's anyone who should be
| worried about pulling that off it's Perplexity and every
| other small to mid-sized player.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| > At this point, everyone is assuming AI will resolve to a
| "winner-take-most" game that is all about network effect,
| scale, barriers to entry and such
|
| I don't understand why people believe this: by settling on
| "unstructured chat" as the API, it means the switching costs
| are essentially zero. The models may give different results,
| but as far a plugging a different one in to your app, it's
| frictionless. I can switch everything to DeepSeek this
| afternoon.
| kibibu wrote:
| What happens when OpenAI introduces sponsored answers?
| Eridrus wrote:
| The business model question applies to all of these
| companies, not just Google.
|
| A lack of workable business model is probably good for Google
| (bad for the rest of the world) since it means AI has not
| done anything economically useful and Google's Search product
| remains a huge cash cow.
| ksec wrote:
| >Meanwhile... making money from online ads isn't trivial.
| When the advertising model works well (eg search/adwords), it
| is a money faucet. But... it can be very hard to get that
| money faucet going. No guarantees that Google discover a
| meaningful business model here... and the innovators' dilema
| is strong.
|
| It's funny how the vibe of HN along with real world 's
| political spectrum have shifted together.
|
| We can now discuss Ads on HN while still being number 1 and
| number 2 post. Extremism still exists, but it is retreating.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| I don't know what you did there, but clearly being ex OpenAI
| isn't the intellectual or product flex it is: I and every other
| smart person I know still use ChatGPT (paid) because even now
| it's the best at what it does and we keep trying Google and
| Claude and keep coming back.
|
| They got and as of now continue to get things right for the
| most part. If you still aren'ht seeing it maybe you should
| introspect what you're missing.
| epolanski wrote:
| I don't know your experience doesn't match mine.
|
| NotebookLM by Google is in a class of its own in the use case
| of "provide documents and ask a chat or questions about them"
| for personal use. ChatGPT and Claude are nowhere near.
| ChatGPT uses RAG so it "understands" less about the topic and
| sometimes hallucinate.
|
| When it comes to coding Claude 3.5/3.7 embedded in Cursor or
| stand alone kept giving better results in real world coding,
| and even there Gemini 2.5 blew it away in my experience.
|
| Antirez, hping and Redis creator among many others releases a
| video on AI pretty much every day (albeit in Italian) and his
| tests where Gemini reviews his PRs for Redis are by far the
| better out of all the models available.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Time for my next round of Evals then. I had a 40 PR coding
| streak last weekend with mostly o3-mini-pro, will test the
| latest 2.5 now.
| chasd00 wrote:
| PR = pull request? So every bit of garbage from the LLM,
| over and over, resulted in an individual pull request?
| Why not just do one when your branch is finally right?
| Philpax wrote:
| Presumably because they were discrete changes (i.e. new
| features), and it didn't make sense to group them
| together.
| egeozcan wrote:
| Or it could be just microservices. One larger feature
| affecting 100 repositories.
| fragmede wrote:
| Why would you assume that?
| fuzzy_biscuit wrote:
| I would assume they don't like that style, like if they
| needed to see a specific diff and make changes or remove
| a commit outright.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| A pull request in my workplace is an actual
| feature/enhancement/bug-fix. That many PRs means I
| shipped that many features or enhancements.
|
| I suppose you don't know what a PR is because you likely
| still work in an environment without modern version
| control, probably just now migrating your rants from vim
| vs emacs to crapping on vibe coding.
|
| In my experience, AI today is an intelligence multiplier.
| A lot of folks just need to look back at the zero they
| keep multiplying and getting zero back to understand why
| they don't get the hype.
| retinaros wrote:
| in what world notebookLM isnt rag as well?
| epolanski wrote:
| I thought it leveraged a much larger context over
| classical rag.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| Gemini with coding seems to be a bit of a mixed bag.
|
| The article claims Gemini is acing the Aider Polyglot
| benchmark. At the moment this is the only benchmark that
| really matters to me because Aider is actually a useful
| tool and performance on that translates directly to real
| world impact, although Claude Code is even better. If you
| look closely, in fact Gemini is at the top only in the
| "percent correct" category but not "percent correct using
| the right edit format". Cost is marked as ? because it's
| not entirely available yet (I think?). Not emitting the
| correct edit format is pretty useless because it means the
| changes won't apply and the tool has to try again.
|
| Claude in contrast almost never makes a mistake with
| emitting the right format. It's at 97%+ in the benchmark,
| in practice it's ~100% in my experience. This tracks:
| Claude is really good at following instructions. Gemini is
| about ~90%. This makes a big difference to how frustrating
| a tool is to use in practice.
|
| They might get that fixed, but my experience has been that
| Google's models are consistently much more likely to refuse
| instructions for dumb reasons. Google is the company with
| by far the biggest purity spiral problem and it does show
| up in their output even when doing apparently ordinary
| tasks.
|
| I'm also concerned by this event:
| https://news.sky.com/story/googles-ai-chatbot-gemini-
| tells-u...
|
| Given how obsessed Google claimed to be with AI safety I
| expected an SRE style postmortem after that, and there was
| bupkis. An AI that can suffer a psychotic break out of
| nowhere like that is one I wouldn't trust unless it's
| behind a very strong sandbox and being supervised very
| closely, but none of the AI tools today offer much in the
| way of sandboxing.
| palata wrote:
| > I and every other smart person I know still use ChatGPT
| (paid)
|
| Not at all my experience, but maybe I'm not part of a smart
| group :)
|
| > because even now it's the best at what it does
|
| Actually I don't see a difference with Mistral or DeepSeek.
| daveed wrote:
| Don't think it's a flex, I think it's useful context for the
| rest of their comment.
|
| > I and every other smart person I know still use ChatGPT
| (paid) because even now it's the best
|
| My smart friends use a mixture of models, including chatgpt,
| claude, gemini, grok. Maybe different people, it's ok, but I
| really don't think chatgpt is head and shoulders above the
| others.
| scrollop wrote:
| I use a service where users can choose any frontier model,
| and OpenAI models haven't been the most used model for over
| half a year - it was sonnet until gemini 2.5 pro came out,
| recently.
|
| Not sure whether you have your perspective because you're
| invested os much into OpenAI, however the general consensus
| is that gemini 2.5 pro is the top model at the moment,
| including all the AI reviews and OpenAI is barely mentioned
| when comparing models. O4 will be interesting, but currently?
| You are not using the best models. Best to read the room.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Are you able to use o3-mini-high through these tools?
| greggsy wrote:
| 'think soon people expect this service to be provided for free'
|
| I have been using the free version for the past year or so and
| it's totally serviceable for the odd question or script. The
| kids get three free fun images, which is great because that's
| about as much as I want them to do.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.
|
| would love to hear more about this.
|
| I made a post asking more about sam altman last year after
| hearing paul graham quote call him 'micheal jordan of
| listening'
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41034829
| tunaoftheland wrote:
| The ads angle is an interesting one since that's what motivates
| most things that Google and Meta do. Their LLMs' context window
| size has been growing, and while this might the natural general
| progression with LLMs, for those 2 ads businesses there's
| pretty straight paths to using their LLMs for even more
| targeted ads. For example, with the recent Llama "herd"
| releases, the LLMs have surprisingly large context window and
| one can imagine why Meta might want that: For stuffing in it as
| much of the personal content that they already have of their
| users. Then their LLMs can generate ads in the tone and style
| of the users and emotionally manipulate them to click on the
| link. Google's LLMs also have large context windows and such
| capability might be too tempting to ignore. Thinking this,
| there were moments that made me think that I was being to
| cynical, but I don't think they'll leave that kind of money on
| the table, an opportunity to reduce human ad writers headcount
| while improving click stats for higher profit.
|
| EDIT: Some typo fixes, tho many remain, I'm sure :)
| jcfrei wrote:
| The real threat to Google, Meta is that LLMs become so cheap
| that its trivial for a company like Apple to make them
| available for free and include all the latest links to good
| products. No more search required if each M chip powered
| device can give you up-to-date recommendations for any
| product/service query.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| That is my fantasy, actually.
| bitpush wrote:
| Meta's models cant be used by companies about a certain
| threshold, so nope. Apple can wait it out to use a 'free
| model', but at that point it'll be like picking up an
| open source database like Postgres - you wont get any
| competitive advantage.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| When LLMs are essentially trying to sell me something, the
| shit is over.
|
| I like LLMs (over search engines) because they are _not_
| salespeople. They 're one of the few things I actually
| "trust". (Which I know is something that many people fall on
| the other side of -- but no, I actually trust them more than
| SEO'd web sites and ad-driven search engines.)
|
| I suppose my local-LLM hobby is for just such a scenario.
| While it is a struggle, there is some joy in trying to host
| locally as powerful an open LLM model as your hardware will
| allow. And if the time comes when the models can no longer be
| trusted, pop back to the last reliable model on the local
| setup.
|
| That's what I keep telling myself anyway.
| satisfice wrote:
| LLMs have not earned your trust. Classic search has.
|
| The only thing I really care about with classic web search
| is whether the resulting website is relevant to my needs.
| On this point I am satisfied nearly all the time. It's easy
| to verify.
|
| With LLMs I get a narrative. It is much harder to evaluate
| a narrative, and errors are more insidious. When I have
| carefully checked an LLM result, I usually discover errors.
|
| Are you really looking closely at the results you get?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Your experience and mine are polar opposite. We use
| search differently is the only way I can reconcile that.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| Feel free to get started on Sam Altman.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| Microsoft CoPilot (which I equate with OpenAI ChatGPT, because
| MS basically owns OpenAI) already shows ads in it's chat mode.
| It's just a matter of time. Netflix, music streamers,
| individual podcasters, YouTubers, TV manufacturers - they all
| converge on an ad-based business model.
| thidr0 wrote:
| People consistently like free stuff more than they dislike
| ads.
|
| Another instantiation: people like cheap goods more than they
| dislike buying foreign made goods
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| > And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.
|
| Why not? That's one of the reasons I visit HN instead of some
| random forum after all.
| somenameforme wrote:
| > "[Google is] a public company and have to answer to
| investors"
|
| As is an increasing trend, they're a "public" company, like
| Facebook. They have tiered shares with Larry Page and Sergey
| Brin owning the majority of the voting power by themselves.
| GOOG shares in particular are class C and have no voting power
| whatsoever.
| wslh wrote:
| I get your perspective, but what we're seeing looks more like
| complex systems theory, emergent behavior, optimization, new
| winners. If models become commoditized, the real value shifts
| to last-mile delivery: mobile, desktop, and server integration
| across regions like China, Korea, the U.S., and Europe.
|
| This is where differentiated UX and speed matter. It's also a
| classic Innovator's Dilemma situation like Google are slower to
| move, while new players can take risks and redefine the game.
| It's not just about burning money or model size, it's about who
| delivers value where it actually gets used.
|
| I also think the influx of new scientists and engineers into AI
| raises the odds of shifting its economics: whether through new
| hardware (TPUs/GPUs) and/or more efficient methods.
| olalonde wrote:
| Do you think Sam will follow through with this?
|
| > Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes
| close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing
| with and start assisting this project. We will work out
| specifics in case-by-case agreements, but a typical triggering
| condition might be "a better-than-even chance of success in the
| next two years."
| tim333 wrote:
| That feels like it came from a past era. (I looked it up - it
| was 2019).
| zkmon wrote:
| People left, to do what kind of startups? Can't think of any
| business idea that won't get outdated, or overrun in months.
| donny2018 wrote:
| AI startups were easy cash grabs until very recently. But I
| think the wave is settling down - doing real AI startup
| turned out to be VERY hard, and the rest of the "startups"
| are mostly just wrappers for OpenAI/Anthropic APIs.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > The main successful product from OpenAI is the ChatGPT app,
| but there's a limit on how much you can charge people for
| subscription fees
|
| other significant revenue surfaces:
|
| - providing LLM APIs to enterprises
|
| - ChatBot Ads market: once people will switch from google
| search, there will be Ads $200B market at stake for a winner
| tom_m wrote:
| I believe it. This is what typically happens. I would go to AWS
| re:invent and just watch people in the audience either cheer or
| break down as they announced new offerings wash away their
| business. It's very difficult to compete in a war of attrition
| with the likes of Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.
|
| Not just small startups - even if you have ungodly amounts of
| funding.
|
| Obviously the costs for AI will lower and everyone will more or
| less have the same quality in their models. They may already be
| approaching a maximum (or maximum required) here.
|
| The bubble will burst and we'll start the next hype cycle. The
| winners, as always, the giants and anyone who managed to sell
| to them
|
| I couldn't possibly see OpenAI as a winner in this space, not
| ever really. It has long since been apparent to me that Google
| would win this one. It would probably be more clear to others
| if their marketing and delivery of their AI products weren't
| such a sh-- show. Google is so incredibly uncoordinated here
| it's shocking...but they do have the resources, the right tech,
| the absolute position with existing user base, and the right
| ideas. As soon as they get better organized here it's game
| over.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Open AI don't always have the best models (especially for
| programming) but they've consistently had the best product/user
| experience. And even in the model front, other companies seem
| to play catchup more than anything most of the time.
| int_19h wrote:
| The best user experience for what?
|
| The most practical use case for generative AI today is coding
| assistants, and if you look at that market, the best
| offerings are third-party IDEs that build on top of models
| they don't own. E.g. Cursor + Gemini 2.5.
|
| On the model front, it _used_ to be the case that other
| companies were playing catch-up with OpenAI. I was one of the
| people consistently pointing out that "better than GPT o1"
| on a bunch of benchmarks does not reliably translate to
| actual improvements when you try to use them. But this is no
| longer the case, either - Gemini 2.5 is really _that_ good,
| and Claude is also beating them in some real world scenarios.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >The best user experience for what?
|
| The app has more features than anyone else, often
| implemented the smoothest/best way. Image Input (which the
| gemini site still sucks at even though the model itself is
| very capable), Voice mode (which used to be much worse in
| gemini until recently), Advanced Voice mode (no-one else
| has really implemented this yet. Gemini recently enabled
| native audio-in but not out), Live Video, Image gen, Deep
| research etc were all things Open AI did first and did
| well. Video Input is only just starting to roll out to
| Gemini live but has been a Plus subscription staple for
| months now.
|
| >The most practical use case for generative AI today is
| coding assistants
|
| Chatgpt gets 500M+ weekly active users and was the 6th most
| visited in the world last month. I doubt coding assistance
| is gpt's most frequent use case. And Google has
| underperformed in coding until 2.5 pro.
|
| >On the model front, it used to be the case that other
| companies were playing catch-up with OpenAI. I was one of
| the people consistently pointing out that "better than GPT
| o1" on a bunch of benchmarks does not reliably translate to
| actual improvements when you try to use them. But this is
| no longer the case, either - Gemini 2.5 is really that
| good, and Claude is also beating them in some real world
| scenarios.
|
| No that's still the case. Playing catch-up doesn't mean the
| competitor never catches up or even briefly supersedes it.
| It means Open AI will in short order release something that
| beats everyone else or introduces some new thing that
| everyone tries to beat. Image Input, 'Omni'- modality,
| Reasoning etc. All things Open AI brought to the table
| first. Sure, 2.5-pro is great but it doesn't look like it
| will beat o3 which looks to be released in a matter of
| weeks.
| int_19h wrote:
| How many of those weekly active users are _paying_ users,
| though?
| og_kalu wrote:
| Seems to be 10 to 20 million
| bobxmax wrote:
| so please enlighten us why OpenAI is doing so much better
| than Anthropic
| int_19h wrote:
| At this point it's pretty much entirely the first mover
| advantage.
| bobxmax wrote:
| I don't think you understand what first mover advantage
| is
|
| In a world of zero switching costs, there is no such
| thing as first mover advantage
|
| Especially when several companies like (A121 Labs and
| Cohere) appeared well before Anthropic and aren't
| anywhere close to Open AI
| stellajager wrote:
| What cards has google played over the past three years such
| that you are willing to trust them play the "cards at hand"
| that you alleged that they have? I could think of several
| things they did right, but I'm curious to hear which one of
| them are more significant than others from someone I think has
| better judgement than I do.
| sumedh wrote:
| > OpenAI is an annoyance for Google
|
| Remember Google is the same company which could not deliver a
| simple Chat App.
|
| Open AI has the potential to become a bigger Ad company and
| make more money.
| bitpush wrote:
| Google has so many channels for ad delivery. ChatGPT is only
| competing against Google Search, which is arguably the
| biggest. But dont forget, Google has YouTube, Google Maps,
| Google Play, Google TV and this is before you start to
| consider Google's Ad Network (the thing where publishers
| embed something to get ads from Google network).
|
| So nope, ChatGPT is not in even in the same league as Google.
| You could argue Meta has similar reach (facebook.com,
| instagram) but that's just two.
| sumedh wrote:
| The same argument can be made for social network and chat
| App yet Google could not succeed at both of them.
| reportgenix wrote:
| valuable information
| adrianN wrote:
| I think paying to bias AI answers in your favor is much more
| attractive than plain ads.
| ohgr wrote:
| Winning as in least bad in arbitrary ranking.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| > I felt Demis Hassabis was trustworthy in a way Sam Altman
| couldn't be--a true scientist, not a businessman
|
| Not that I think Demis is or is not trustworthy, but I think it's
| a bit foolish to believe it would be allowed to matter.
| eru wrote:
| I also don't see why scientists should be more trustworthy than
| business people.
| procaryote wrote:
| In theory, one seeks knowledge, the other money.
|
| In practice, people are people and there are probably
| variance in both camps, but it's easy to see why one would by
| default trust a business person less
| eru wrote:
| > In theory, one seeks knowledge, the other money.
|
| There's nothing wrong with either in my books, especially
| if you seek money by serving your fellow humans.
| blitzar wrote:
| I also don't see why doctors should be more trustworthy than
| used car sales people.
| logicchains wrote:
| The opiod epidemic should have taught people that indeed
| doctors shouldn't be trusted more than any other
| profession.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| your trust scale needs more dynamic range- the sackler
| fiasco genuinely should have bumped everyone's trust in
| doctors a lot, but probably should not have bumped them
| below supplement peddling minecraft youtubers.
| tim333 wrote:
| It's already made some difference to how the companies are
| behaving - Deepmind doing quite a lot of work on protein
| folding and now protein drug interactions, OpenAI under Altman
| tying to do the startup max the money raised and user count
| thing.
| giorgioz wrote:
| No it's not obvious at all Google is winning AI on every front.
| There is few stuff Google is systemically behind: 1) UX 2)
| product and use case innovation
|
| I just open Google Gemini Android app and asked to generate a JS
| script with Gemini 2 Flash and did the same with ChatGPT.
|
| Gemini did not highlighted with colors the code. ChatGPT did
| highlighted with colors the code.
|
| Colors in code are extremely useful to grok the code and have a
| nice DX.
|
| I'm sure if I dig into Gemini's product I'll find dozens of UX/DX
| ways in which ChatGPT is better.
|
| Google is still playing catch-up with LLM products. ChatGPT is
| still the one making the announcements and then Gemini doing the
| same UX/use case enhancements weeks/months later.
| Legend2440 wrote:
| >Gemini did not highlighted with colors the code. ChatGPT did
| highlighted with colors the code.
|
| I don't care if the code is highlighted nearly as much as I
| care if it's right.
|
| This kind of stuff is nice-to-have but the quality of the
| underlying LLM is what really matters.
| rs186 wrote:
| Well, you don't care but other people care, and likely not
| one or two people, but enough. And enough of these "little
| things" added up, one chooses a product over another.
| neuroelectron wrote:
| This is very simply a bunch of minor stuff Googlites feel like
| they're above implementing. They would rather let you implement
| that and you both get a cut.
| gessha wrote:
| Not like Apple's quality is any better nowadays but Google's
| unwillingness to finish their design work and provide a
| functional product is one of the many reasons I avoid their
| products like the plague.
| neuroelectron wrote:
| Allowing and encouraging API use makes it easy for big
| corporations to clone their services though, making
| compatible systems and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was
| datamining Maps when they made their Maps.
| nikolayasdf123 wrote:
| +1 gemini flash is very good models. very cheap, very fast,
| pretty smart. API integration (if you are inside GCP) is
| convenient. API is good (gRPC, encoding, OpenAI API style).
| newest AI notebook studio UI thing also works as you would expect
| it. well done.
| levocardia wrote:
| Google is winning on every front except... marketing (Google has
| a chatbot?), trust (who knew the founding fathers were so
| diverse?), safety (where's the 2.5 Pro model card?), market share
| (fully one in ten internet users on the planet are weekly ChatGPT
| users), and, well, vibes (who's rooting for big G, exactly?).
|
| But I will admit, Gemini Pro 2.5 is a legit good model. So, hats
| off for that.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| Google is also terribly paranoid of the LLM saying anything
| controversial. If you want a summary of some hot topic article
| you might not have the time to read, Gemini will straight up
| refuse to answer. ChatGPT and Grok don't mind at all.
| AznHisoka wrote:
| The single reason I will never ever be an user of them. Its a
| hill I will die on
| silisili wrote:
| I noticed the same in Gemini. It would refuse to answer
| mundane questions that none but the most 'enlightened' could
| find an offensive twist to.
|
| This makes it rather unusable as a catch all goto resource,
| sadly. People are curious by nature. Refusing to answer their
| questions doesn't squash that, it leads them to potentially
| less trustworthy sources.
| rat87 wrote:
| Trying to answer complex questions by making up shit in a
| confident voice is the worst option. Redirecting to a more
| trustworthy human source or multiple if needed is much
| better
| aeonik wrote:
| I talk to ChatGPT about some controversial things, and
| it's pretty good at nuance and devils advocate if you ask
| for it. It's more echo chamber, if you don't, or rather
| extreme principle of charity, which might be a good
| thing.
| ranyume wrote:
| > Refusing to answer their questions doesn't squash that,
| it leads them to potentially less trustworthy sources.
|
| But that's good
| thfuran wrote:
| For who?
| ranyume wrote:
| For the reader.
|
| The AI won't tell the reader what to think in an
| authoritative voice. This is better than the AI trying to
| decide what is true and what isn't.
|
| However, the AI should be able to search the web and
| present it's findings without refusals. Obviously, always
| presenting the sources. And the AI should never use an
| authoritative tone and it should be transparent about the
| steps it took to gather the information, and present the
| sites and tracks _it didn 't follow_.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Yes, Musk's contention of an AI trying to tell the truth,
| no matter what, is straight up horse manure. Should be
| done for false advertising (per usual)
| thfuran wrote:
| Elon Musk had been an endless stream of false advertising
| for years.
| wegfawefgawefg wrote:
| "If i never choose, I can never be wrong. Isnt that
| great?"
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Deepseek to circumvent Western censorship
|
| Claude to circumvent Eastern censorship
|
| Grok Unhinged for a wild time
| logicchains wrote:
| Not a fan of Google, but if you use Gemini through AI studio
| with a custom prompt and filters disabled it's by far the
| least censored commercial model in my experience.
| einsteinx2 wrote:
| Less censored than Grok?
| nova22033 wrote:
| How many people use Grok for real work?
| int_19h wrote:
| Most of https://chirper.ai runs on Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite,
| and it has plenty of extremely NSFW content generated.
| jsemrau wrote:
| >Google is also terribly paranoid of the LLM saying anything
| controversial.
|
| When did this start? Serious question. Of all the model
| providers my experience with Google's LLMs and Chatproducts
| were the worst in that dimension. Black Nazis, Eating stones,
| pizza with glue, etc I suppose we've all been there.
| rahidz wrote:
| The ghost of Tay still haunts every AI company.
| rat87 wrote:
| As it should. The potential for harm from LLMs is
| significant and they should be aware of that
| bmcahren wrote:
| From day one. We would have had LLMs years before if Google
| wasn't holding back. They knew the risk - google search
| would be dead as soon as the internet were flooded with AI
| content that google could not distinguish from real
| content.
|
| Then you could look at how the first "public preview"
| models they released were so neutered by their own
| inhibitions they were useless (to me). Things like over-
| active refusals in response to "killing child processes".
| miohtama wrote:
| I think that's the "trust" bit. In AI, trust generally means
| "let's not offend anyone and water it down to useless."
| Google is paranoid of being sued/getting attention if Gemini
| says something about Palestine or drawns images like Studio
| Ghibli. Meanwhile users love to these topics and memes are
| free marketing.
| rat87 wrote:
| Seems like a feature. Last thing we need is a bunch of people
| willing to take AI at it's word making up shit about
| controversial topics. I'd say redirecting to good or
| prestigious source is probably the best you can do
| StefanBatory wrote:
| I remember when LLM first appeared - on a local social
| website of my country (think Digg), a lot of people were
| exctatic because they got ChatGPT to say that black people
| are dumb, claiming it as a victory over woke :P
| dorgo wrote:
| Try asking ChatGPT to solve a captcha for you ( character
| recognition in a foreign language ). AI studio doesn't
| refuse.
| torginus wrote:
| Didn't GCP manage to lose from this position of strength? I'm
| not sure even if they're the third biggest
| sidibe wrote:
| They "lost from a position of strength" in that they had they
| had the most public-cloud like data centers and started
| thinking about selling that later than they should have.
| Bard/Gemini started later than chatgpt , but there's not
| really a moat for this LLM stuff, and Google started moving a
| lot earlier relative to GCP vs Amazon.
|
| They've got the cash, the people, and the infrastructure to
| do things faster than the others going forward, which is a
| much bigger deal IMO than having millions more users right
| now. Most people still aren't using LLMs that often,
| switching is easy, and Google has the most obvious entry
| points with billion+ users with google.com, YouTube, gmail,
| chrome, android, etc.
| donny2018 wrote:
| They were well positioned for cloud business long before
| AWS and Azure, but they still managed to lose this battle.
|
| Google can be good on the technological side of things, but
| we saw time and time again that, other than ads, Google is
| just not good at business.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| I wouldn't even say Gemini Pro 2.5 is the best model. Certainly
| not when you do multimodal or function calling, which is what
| actually matters in industry applications. Plain chatbots are
| nice, but I don't think they will decide who wins the race.
| Google is also no longer in the mindset to really innovate.
| You'll hear surprisingly similar POVs from ex-Googlers and ex-
| OpenAI guys. I'd actually say OpenAI still has an edge in terms
| of culture, even through it fell deep.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| > Certainly not when you do multimodal or function calling
|
| Who is? (Genuine question, it's hard to keep up given how
| quickly the field moves.)
| mjirv wrote:
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet for function calling, and it's not
| particularly close in my experience.
|
| Not sure about multimodal as it's not what I work on.
| stavros wrote:
| If you want an LLM to interface with other systems,
| function calling is absolutely essential.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I have found function calling and 'roll my own agents' work
| much better now with Gemini than they did late last year, but
| I also do a lot of function calling experiments with small
| open models using Ollama - much more difficult to work with
| to get a robust system.
| PunchTornado wrote:
| really? all of my friends and everyone I know actually hates
| openai. they managed to be the bad guy in AI.
| int_19h wrote:
| I did some experiments with Gemini Pro 2.5 vs Sonnet 3.7 for
| coding assistants, and, at least as far as code quality and
| ability to understand complexities in existing codebase goes,
| Gemini is noticeably stronger.
| sublimefire wrote:
| It might be worth throwing in an analogy to windows PCs vs Mac
| vs Linux. G appeals to a subset of the market at the end of the
| day, being "best" does not mean everyone will use it.
| rzz3 wrote:
| You really hit the nail on the head with trust. Knowing the
| power of these AIs and how absolutely little I trust Google,
| I'd never tell trust Gemini with the things I'll say to
| ChatGPT.
| philsnow wrote:
| > how absolutely little I trust Google, I'd never tell trust
| Gemini with the things I'll say to ChatGPT.
|
| Are you pretty sure that Google won't eventually buy OpenAI
| and thus learn everything you've said to ChatGPT?
| dunefox wrote:
| It's not about the information, but the connection to all
| Google services.
| squigz wrote:
| Why do you think OpenAI is more trustworthy than Google?
| alternatex wrote:
| Simply put Google has had more time to develop a terrible
| data hoarding reputation.
| marcusb wrote:
| Isn't hoarding data for training purposes a key part of
| OpenAI's business model? I get that they don't have a
| reputation for selling that data (or access to it) _yet_
| , but, what happens if/when funding dries up?
|
| I definitely don't trust Google -- fool me once, and all
| -- but to the extent I'm going to "trust" any business
| with my data, I'd like to see a proven business model
| that isn't based on monetizing my information and is
| likely to continue to work (e.g., Apple). OpenAI doesn't
| have that.
| alternatex wrote:
| I don't think it's about trusting OpenAI necessarily, and
| definitely not a character like Sam Altman. It's more
| about Google having a proven record of being data
| obsessed. 99% of the money they make is from our data.
| Many other tech giants (Apple, Microsoft, etc) are also
| hard to trust, but at least they don't have their whole
| business model built on user data like Google and Meta. I
| can't blame anyone looking at OpenAI as a lesser evil.
| gessha wrote:
| For me it's less about trustworthiness and more about what
| they can do with the information. Google can potentially
| locate, profile and influence everyone around me and I
| don't want that type of power however benevolent they are.
|
| What can OpenAI do? They can sell my data, whatever, it's a
| whole bunch of prompts of me asking for function and API
| syntax.
| squigz wrote:
| Do you think Google doesn't sell that data, or that other
| companies don't collect and resell it?
|
| In either case, I'm sure that's how it starts. "This
| company has very little power and influence; what damage
| can they do?"
|
| Until, oh so suddenly, they're tracking and profiling you
| and selling that data.
| gessha wrote:
| Based on some friends in Google, I don't think they
| explicitly sell it but live ad auction is something I'm
| wary of.
|
| Also, it's less about what they currently do but what
| they're capable of. A Cold War of privacy of sorts.
| pb7 wrote:
| Google doesn't sell data.
| Const-me wrote:
| I agree with GP. The reason is simple, business model.
|
| Google's main source of income, by far, is selling ads. Not
| just any ads but highly targeted ones, which means global
| digital surveillance is an essential part of their business
| model.
| pb7 wrote:
| OpenAI doesn't have a business model. They sell dollars
| for 75 cents. If push comes to shove, they will sell your
| data to make ends meet. What about OpenAI screams
| stability and trust? Is it all their leadership leaving
| after countless cases of drama? Is it a CEO that oozes
| snake oil?
| crazygringo wrote:
| That's curious.
|
| Large corporations wind up creating internal policies,
| controls, etc. If you know anyone who works in engineering at
| Google, you'll find out about the privacy and security
| reviews required in launching code.
|
| Startups, on the other hand, are the wild west. One policy
| one day, another the next, engineers are doing things that
| don't follow either policy, the CEO is selling data, and then
| they run out of money and sell all the data to god knows who.
|
| Google is pretty stable. OpenAI, on the other hand, has been
| mega-drama you could make a movie out of. Who knows what it's
| going to be doing with data two or four years from now?
| ysofunny wrote:
| cue the openAI movie
|
| same pattern as Mark Zuckerberg's movie.
| bjackman wrote:
| Well, Google is also very well placed to integrate with other
| products that have big market share.
|
| So far this has been nothing but a PM wankfest but if Gemini-
| in-{Gmail,Meet,Docs,etc} actually gets useful, it could be a
| big deal.
|
| I also don't think any of those concerns are as important for
| API users as direct consumers. I think that's gonna be a bugger
| part of my the market as time goes on.
| rs186 wrote:
| Microsoft has been integrated Copilot in their Office
| products. In fact, they don't even call it Office any more.
| Guess what? If you ever had first hand experience with them,
| they are absolutely a dumpster fire. (Well, maybe except
| transcription in Teams meeting, but that's about it.) I used
| it for 5 minutes and never touch it again. I'll be very
| impressed if that's not the case with Google.
| killerstorm wrote:
| Winning =/= won. The point is that they are improving on many
| fronts. If they were already recognized as THE leader there
| would be no point in making a HN post about it.
| tbolt wrote:
| Add to this list apps. As in ChatGPT and Anthropic have nice
| desktop software applications for Mac and Windows.
| a2128 wrote:
| My experience with their software has been horrible. A friend
| was messing around with Gemini on my phone and said my name is
| John, and it automatically saved that to my saved info list and
| always called me John from then on. But when I ask it to forget
| this, it says it can't do that automatically and links me to
| the Saved Info page, which is a menu they didn't implement in
| the app so it opens a URL in my browser and asks me to sign
| into my Google account again. Then a little toast says
| "Something went wrong" and the saved info list is empty and
| broken. I tried reporting this issue half a year ago and it's
| still unresolved. Actually the only way I was ever able to get
| it to stop calling me John is to say "remember to forget my
| name is John" in some way that it adds that to the list instead
| of linking me to that broken page
| wayeq wrote:
| how's your day going, John?
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I look more to Google for efficient and inexpensive LLM APIs,
| and in a similar way to Groq Cloud for inexpensive and fast
| inferencing for open models.
|
| ChatGPT has a nice consumer product, and I also like it.
|
| Google gets a bad rap on privacy, etc., but if you read the
| documentation and set privacy settings, etc. then I find them
| reasonable. (I read OpenAI's privacy docs for a long while
| before experimenting with their integration of Mac terminal,
| VSCode, and IntelliJ products.)
|
| We live in a cornucopia of AI tools. Occasionally I will just
| for the hell of it do all my research work for several days
| just using open models running on my Mac using Ollama - I
| notice a slight hit in productivity, but still a good setup.
|
| Something for everyone!
| ACCount36 wrote:
| Trust is important, and Google has a big rep for killing its
| projects. As well as making the most moronic braindead
| decisions in handling what they don't kill off.
|
| No one is going to build on top of anything "Google" without
| having a way out thought out in advance.
|
| Not that important for LLMs, where drop-in replacements are
| usually available. But a lot of people just hear "by Google"
| now and think "thanks I'll pass" - and who can blame them?
| culopatin wrote:
| I had to stop using Gemini 2.5 because the UI peaks my MPB cpu
| at max and I can't type my prompt at more than a character
| every 2 seconds. I can't even delete my chats lol. Anyone else?
| jsk2600 wrote:
| On deleting chats, I accidentally discovered that AI Studio
| creates a 'Google AI Studio' folder on your Google Drive with
| all the links to chats. If you delete the 'link' from there,
| it will disappear in AI Studio...interesting UX :-)
| hermitShell wrote:
| I would like to think they just let other companies have the
| first mover advantage on chatbots because it only disrupts
| Google in their search business, which was already pretty far
| gone and on the way out. Where is AI actually going to change
| the world? Protein folding, robotics, stuff that the public
| doesn't hype about. And they looked at the gold rush and
| decided "let's design shovels". Maybe I'm giving them too much
| credit but very bullish on Google.
| joshdavham wrote:
| My hesitancy to adopt Gemini, despite being a heavy GCP and
| workspace user, is I kinda lost trust when trying to use their
| earlier models (I don't even remember those models' names). I
| just remember the models were just so consistently bad and
| obviously hallucinated more than 50% of the time.
|
| Maybe Gemini is finally better, but I'm not exactly excited to
| give it a try.
| khimaros wrote:
| it is a completely different product these days
| rs186 wrote:
| Exactly. Google may have a lead in their model, but saying they
| are "winning on every front" is a very questionable claim, from
| the perspective of everyday users, not influencers, devoted
| fans or anyone else who has a stake in hyping it.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I'm scared they're going to kill it off. Every good idea
| they've had in the last 20 years has been killed off. Even
| Fuchsia/Zircon, which should have supplanted Android a full
| decade ago.
| GaggiX wrote:
| The only thing I think ChatGPT is better is native image
| generation, their model is able to work in the joint-space much
| better than any other model I have seen, but I'm sure Google will
| try to catch up rapidly.
| admiralrohan wrote:
| What about Grok and Chinese counterparts?
|
| X data is private now which would give advantage it real-time
| scenarios. And Chinese have made it state-level priority.
| renewiltord wrote:
| It is very quick to abort conversations and if the safety stuff
| kicks in, it loses all context. But I will keep giving it a crack
| since everyone seems to think it's great. Maybe I just need to
| learn the tricks.
| tkgally wrote:
| > Gemini 2.5 Pro in Deep Research mode is twice as good as
| OpenAI's Deep Research
|
| That matches my impression. For the past month or two, I have
| been running informal side-by-side tests of the Deep Research
| products from OpenAI, Perplexity, and Google. OpenAI was clearly
| winning--more complete and incisive, and no hallucinated sources
| that I noticed.
|
| That changed a few days ago, when Google switched their Deep
| Research over to Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental. While OpenAI's and
| Perplexity's reports are still pretty good, Google's usually seem
| deeper, more complete, and more incisive.
|
| My prompting technique, by the way, is to first explain to a
| regular model the problem I'm interested in and ask it to write a
| full prompt that can be given to a reasoning LLM that can search
| the web. I check the suggested prompt, make a change or two, and
| then feed it to the Deep Research models.
|
| One thing I've been playing with is asking for reports that
| discuss and connect three disparate topics. Below are the reports
| that the three Deep Research models gave me just now on
| surrealism, Freudian dream theory, and AI image prompt
| engineering. Deciding which is best is left as an exercise to the
| reader.
|
| OpenAI:
|
| https://chatgpt.com/share/67fa21eb-18a4-8011-9a97-9f8b051ad3...
|
| Google:
|
| https://docs.google.com/document/d/10mF_qThVcoJ5ouPMW-xKg7Cy...
|
| Perplexity:
|
| https://www.perplexity.ai/search/subject-analytical-report-i...
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| > "produce a comprehensive analytical report exploring the
| conceptual and methodological intersections between Surrealist
| art techniques, Freudian dream analysis, and the practice of
| prompt engineering for AI image generation models (such as
| DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion)."
|
| Haha, what a perfect project for AI.
| stafferxrr wrote:
| Great stuff. My prompts are falling behind after seeing what
| you are doing here.
|
| I find OpenAI annoying at this point that it doesn't output a
| pdf easily like Perplexity. The best stuff I have found has
| been in the Perplexity references also.
|
| Google outputting a whole doc is really great. I am just about
| to dig into Gemini 2.5 Pro in Deep Research for the first time.
| tkgally wrote:
| > My prompts are falling behind....
|
| If you haven't already, you might want to try metaprompting,
| that is, having a model write the prompt for you. These days,
| I usually dictate my metaprompts through a STT app, which
| saves me a lot of time. A metaprompt I gave to Claude earlier
| today is at [1]. It's sloppy and has some transcription
| errors, but, as you can see, Claude wrote a complete, well-
| organized prompt that produced really good results from
| Gemini Deep Research [2]. (I notice now, though, that the
| report is truncated at the end.)
|
| [1]
| https://claude.ai/share/94982d9d-b580-496f-b725-786f72b15956
|
| [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1np5xdXuely7cxFMlkQm0l
| Q4j...
| siva7 wrote:
| Metaprompting is the way to go. Also avoid projects
| attachments as it uses inferior techniques like rag
| siva7 wrote:
| Matches also my experience that openai fell behind with their
| deep search product. And that deep search is basically the top
| tier benchmark for what professionals are willing to pay. So
| why should i shell out 200 dollar for an openai subscription
| when google gives me a better top-tier product for 1/10th of
| the price openai or anthropic are asking. Although i assume
| google is just more willing to burn cash in order to not let
| openai take more market share which would get them later on soo
| more expensive (e.g. iphone market share, also classic
| microsoft strategy).
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| It may actually be affordable for Google to charge $20 vs
| OAI's $200. Google already has an extensive datacenter
| operation and infrastructure that they're amortizing across
| many products and services. AI requires significant additions
| to it, of course, but their economy of scale may make a low
| monthly sub price viable.
| beering wrote:
| The $20/month Chatgpt subscription has deep research so the
| comparison should be $20 vs $20, not $20 vs $200.
| ViktorRay wrote:
| Thanks for sharing your prompting technique. I will try to use
| that technique in the future as well.
| gwd wrote:
| > Add to the above that Gemini 2.5, compared to models of its
| category, is fast and cheap--I mean, they're giving away free
| access!
|
| A large player with massive existing streams giving away a
| product in a new market to undercut new entrants? Looks an awful
| lot like abuse of monopoly position...
| rvba wrote:
| If google's AI is doing so great why are the "questions and
| answers" near thr lle search so bad?
|
| Also the search quality itself went downhill. There was a great
| article about that on HN some time ago.
| qwertox wrote:
| Is it just my computer or do others also have huge performance
| problems in somewhat large chats in AI Studio?
|
| They really need to fix this.
|
| It gets to a point where on each submit Google Chrome pops up a
| "wait | close tab" dialog.
|
| I then have to use AI Studio for the "big picture" in one tab and
| ChatGPT in the smaller subtasks which help with the big picture.
| wiradikusuma wrote:
| I chat with Gemini Pro 2.5 Exp in Continue.dev IntelliJ plugin. I
| told it to "implement this method" and it even suggested
| improvements in other files (that were included in context). I
| feel like talking to a person.
|
| BUT more often than not, it stopped halfway (the code, so it's
| unusable). I'm not sure if it's the plugin that cannot handle the
| response, but it never happens with Claude.
| ozgune wrote:
| I feel the article presents the data selectively in some places.
| Two examples:
|
| * The article compares Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental to DeepSeek-R1
| in accuracy benchmarks. Then, when the comparison becomes about
| cost, it compares Gemini 2.0 Flash to DeepSeek-R1.
|
| * In throughput numbers, DeepSeek-R1 is quoted at 24 tok/s. There
| are half a dozen providers, who give you easily 100+ tok/s and at
| scale.
|
| There's no doubt that Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is a state of
| the art model. I just think it's very hard to win on _every_ AI
| front these days.
| yalok wrote:
| but also they compare reasoning and non-reasoning models - e.g.
| Meta's Llama 4
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Orthogonal -- the remarkable thing about DeepSeek-R1 seems to
| me is that it shows how easy it in fact is to create an LLM. A
| quantitative hedge fund was able to throw money and develop a
| competitive LLM. Maybe that somewhat reveals that it's just a
| "man behind the curtain."
| nabla9 wrote:
| Most analysts don't differentiate between:
|
| 1) AI research as science and
|
| 2) Productization and engineering that science into something to
| sell.
|
| While Google DeepMind focused on things that won Hassabis and
| Jumper Nobel prize in Chemistry, OpenAI took transformers
| architecture (Google researchers invented), built the first big
| model, and engineered it into a product.
|
| Google has the best researchers, and does most research. When
| they finally chose to jump into the business and pull Hassabis
| and others from doing more important stuff to moneymaking,
| obviously they win.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No, that's not at all obvious because building products for any
| given market is a radically different competency than research,
| and the kind of basic, fundamental research that tends to win
| Nobels is actually a competency a step further removed from
| product than normal corporate R&D; outside of Google-scale
| orgs, it's mostly (whether or not of Nobel quality) done at
| universities with both product-oriented research and actual
| productization done in industry, often based largely on
| published academic results, but generally with no strong direct
| connection between the people doing the basic research and the
| people winning the competition for successful commercial
| products.
| flexie wrote:
| Google will need a far better LLM than OpenAI to throw them
| decisively off the AI throne, just like another company would
| need a far better search engine than Google to throw them off the
| search throne. ChatGPT is now the 7th highest ranking website on
| the planet - does anyone outside the HN crowd know about Google
| AI Studio?
|
| Brands matter, and when regular people think AI, they think of
| OpenAI before they think Google, even if Google has more AI
| talents and scores better on tests.
|
| And isn't it good? Who wants a world where the same handful of
| companies dominate all tech?
| neuderrek wrote:
| Regular people is not where the money is. For example, I get
| Gemini as part of my employer's Google Workspace subscription,
| and as it is now decent enough, have no need to use anything
| else.
| danpalmer wrote:
| > Google will need a far better LLM than OpenAI ... ChatGPT is
| now the 7th highest ranking website on the planet
|
| And Google is #1 and #2, with search and YouTube. Distribution
| is a huge part of the problem and they've got some great
| distribution options.
| uncomplexity_ wrote:
| fair call but
|
| 1. unlike openai, google is already cashflow positive and
| doesnt need to raise any external funds
|
| 2. unlike openai, google already has the distribution figured
| out on both software and hardware
|
| google is like an aircraft carrier that takes so fucking long
| to steer, but once done steering its entire armada will wipe
| you the fuck out (at least on the top 20% features for 80% use
| case)
|
| anthropic already especialized for coding, openai seems to be
| steering towards intimacy, i guess they both got the memo that
| they need to specialize
| riku_iki wrote:
| > unlike openai, google is already cashflow positive and
| doesnt need to raise any external funds
|
| this can quickly change in several quarters, if users decide
| to leave google search, then all google org/infra complexity
| will play very badly against them
| uejfiweun wrote:
| I really don't think this is a likely outcome in the
| 'several quarters' timeframe. The world just spent 2.5
| decades going onto Google. There are so many small business
| owners out there who hate technology... so many old people
| who took years just to learn how to Google... so many
| ingrained behaviors of just Googling things... outside of
| the vocal tech crowd I think it's exceedingly unlikely that
| users stop using Google en masse.
| riku_iki wrote:
| Its just my personal non-tech network is switching to
| chatgpt on many accounts. Your network can be different
| of course.
| bitpush wrote:
| Those folks dont make any money unfortunately, but it is
| still a drag on Open AI. So sooner or later, Open AI will
| have to find a way to make money (and nope, all these
| people wont pay anything) and by that time, Open AI would
| probably run out of time.
|
| Ask snapchat.
| riku_iki wrote:
| I think sooner or later LLM providers will force to
| introduce Ads, and those folks are Ok with ads, since
| they used google search.
| alganet wrote:
| Ask llama to recommend you a pair of sunglasses, then
| look to see if the top recommendation by the LLM matches
| a brand that has advertisement association with the
| creator of llama.
|
| Soon we will start seeing chatbots preferring some brands
| and products over others, without them telling that they
| were fine tuned or training biased for that.
|
| Unless brand placement is forbidden by purging it from
| training data, we'll never know if it is introduced bias
| or coincidence. You will be introduced to ads without
| even noticing they are there.
| riku_iki wrote:
| Its trivial to check if any brands mentioned in the
| response before returning it to user, and then ask LLM to
| adjust response to mention brand who paid for placement
| instead.
| alganet wrote:
| What I described happens in the raw offline model too.
| Those don't have post-inference heuristics such as those
| you described, implying the bias is baked in the training
| data or fine tuning steps.
| paradite wrote:
| The author mentioned AlphaGo and Alpha Zero without mentioning
| OpenAI gym and OpenAI Five.
|
| Those products show OpenAI was innovating and leading in RL at
| that stage around 2017 to 2019.
|
| https://github.com/openai/gym
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI_Five
| bitpush wrote:
| This is the first I'm hearing about it.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Just a fun I had with Gemini 2.5 pro. I asked him to create a
| code for a toolchain that uses some ai at a point and it
| stubbornly used OpenAI api and refused to generate code using
| Gemini apis instead. Also it said it is model trained by google.
| Didn't knew its name and when asked to generate code for
| "youself" defaulted to openai.
|
| Probably sending people to spend money at your competition is not
| the surefire way to market dominance.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| I have been using all AI tools in my job working for ai startup
| and none of them are google products. May be I should give it a
| try, their product positioning is horrible
| ww520 wrote:
| May be it's my luck but I found a glaring issue with Gemini 2.5
| Pro in AI Studio.
|
| I asked it whether a language feature in Zig was available. It
| answered yes and proceeded to generate a whole working sample
| code. I compiled it and got an error. Reported the error and it
| said the error showed I typed it wrong and asked me to make sure
| it's typed correctly. Eh?! It's a copy-and-paste. I confirmed
| again it's wrong. It then said it must be my compiler version was
| too old. Nope, using the latest. It then said very convincingly
| that based on its extensively research into the language official
| documentation, official examples, and release notes, the feature
| must exist. I asked it to show me the reference materials it used
| to draw the conclusion. None of links it gave were valid. I told
| it they were wrong. It gave back another set of links and claimed
| it had checked the links to make sure they are alive. The links
| were alive but didn't contain any mention of the feature. I let
| it know again. It admitted couldn't find the mentioned feature.
| But it insisted the feature had been merged in a PR. The PR link
| it gave was unrelated. I let it know. It gave me another 3 PR's
| and said one mentioned something related so the feature must be
| in. At the point I gave up.
|
| The issue was that it sounded very convincing and stated "facts"
| very confidently, with backings to documents and other resources
| even if they were wrong or irrelevant. Even when told it gave the
| wrong info, it would double down and made up some BS reference
| material to back up its claim.
| harvey9 wrote:
| Generative AI makes things up so I'm surprised that you seem
| surprised. For some situations checking the documentation is
| still the best option.
| ww520 wrote:
| I know LLM's hallucinate. I'm surprised how convincing and
| how stubborn it insisted it's right. Other LLM's would have
| given up and admit they don't know.
| harvey9 wrote:
| The other day I wanted to use a function in an unfamiliar
| library. Gemini kept putting an argument into the call that
| wasn't supposed to be there even after I explicitly told it
| not to. This was after I trusted Gemini, got an error
| message and looked at the docs. The argument it was adding
| was required for other functions in other libraries the
| same subject area so I suppose that's why it did it.
| aleksiy123 wrote:
| Wrong library version is also a classic.
|
| At some point it would be nice if someone could come up
| with a way of grounding/adding package docs and/or
| version as part of the context automatically
| tored wrote:
| Gemini told someone I know that golang have manual memory
| management and was very adamant about it.
| Giorgi wrote:
| Google AI is a crap. Moment they start "winning" you will see it
| everywhere.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Now watch the dance to protect their adsnitch ecosystem.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Now is the time to wrestle away chrome or the AI things. Company
| is too big. Time to butcher.
| dtquad wrote:
| Google is the primary target for current US anti-big-tech
| sentiments that are getting political traction with Lina Khan and
| Steve Bannon teaming up at a recent conference against US Big
| Tech companies. J.D. Vance has also expressed that he agrees with
| Lina Khan and Steve Bannon and would like to see US Big Tech
| companies like Google be forcibly split up.
|
| What will happen with Google's AI wing when Google inevitably
| gets split up in the next 4-8 years?
| fancyfredbot wrote:
| Are the administration really going to risk messing with one of
| their leading AI companies while they are also terrified of
| China catching up or overtaking them in leading edge AI?
|
| I wouldn't put it past them but I don't think it's a given
| either.
| gessha wrote:
| In my opinion they should because the US doesn't have any GPU
| restrictions and VCs are hungry for disruption. The US also
| has the tech talent pool to throw at the problem unlike in
| manufacturing.
|
| After breaking up Google, there will be a lot more moats to
| be had vs being stifled by the Google behemoth.
| bitpush wrote:
| Step 1: introduce chaos. Step 2: ?? Step 3: profit.
|
| Is that the strategy?
| a1371 wrote:
| I think my experience has been different from everyone else. As
| an owner of a pixel phone and multiple Google accounts, I wanted
| this to be true. But Gemini has been super inconsistent with
| tasks that are trivial for Google Assistant. I even bought the
| $26 AI plan for my account to help with some proofreading and
| it's been awful compared to ChatGPT. I'm about to cancel it.
| flux293m wrote:
| Something I've noticed is that Gemini through gemini.google.com
| or through the mobile apps is vastly inferior to Gemini through
| aistudio.google.com. Much worse handling of long contexts
| amongst other things. Very odd that a product that is free (AI
| Studio use is free), is much worse than the product I am paying
| 20 quid a month for.
|
| I find this to be especially true for the newer models like
| "gemini-2.5-pro-preview-03-25", so if you haven't tried AI
| Studio yet, I'd give that a go.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Every time I think, maybe I'll get a subscription, I read
| something like this and ask why?
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Why does Google even have these two different interfaces?
| seafoamteal wrote:
| AI studio is not a consumer interface. It's targeted at
| people building products that integrate LLMs.
| sumedh wrote:
| They also have Vertex AI for the same thing.
| tmarthal wrote:
| Google seems to do a lot of "shipping the org chart"
| externally.
| keepamovin wrote:
| I still find OpenAI Whisper transcription the absolute best there
| is. Grok is the best reasoning/code model right now IMO, but it's
| audio transcription (and Apple's audio transcription) still
| totally sucks.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| I haven't seen anyone else integrate LLMs properly with email and
| calendar other than Google.
|
| I had an interesting experience: I was taking out a loan for some
| solar panels and there were some complicated instructions across
| multiple emails. I asked Gemini to summarise exactly what I had
| to do. It looked through my emails and told me I had to go to the
| web site for local rebate scheme and apply there. It even
| emphasised that it was important that I do that. I scoffed at it
| because I thought my installer was going to do that and wrote it
| off. A few weeks later, guess what: the installer calls me
| because they can't see the rebate application in their portal and
| want me to go check that I applied for it (!). Sure enough, I
| missed the language in the email telling me to do that and had to
| do exactly what Gemini had said weeks ago.
|
| I do think Google has a real shot here _because_ they have such
| an integrated email and calendaring solution where everyone
| already assumes it 's online, fully indexed etc.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| I run every query I do through all the major models, up to 10 of
| them at this point.
|
| Benchmarks aside Gemini 2.5 Pro is a great model and now often
| produces the best code for me but it's not notably better than
| any of the other frontier models in my testing each of which
| tends to have their own strengths and weaknesses.
|
| And Google's wrapper around Gemini is easily the most frustrating
| of any of the major AI companies. It's content guardrails are
| annoying and I just learned yesterday it won't let you upload
| json files for whatever reason (change the extension to txt
| without modifying the contents in any way and it works just
| fine).
| enlyth wrote:
| Gemini 2.5 Pro does this annoying thing where it decides to
| refactor every part of your code even if you didn't ask, and
| also it outputs way too many damn comments on almost every line
| in the style of:
|
| // Increment variable by 1
|
| I find Claude 3.7 better at following instructions, even though
| the solutions it comes up with may not be the best at times
| ZeroTalent wrote:
| This is why we use Gemini and its context window as the
| architect and Sonnet 3.7 Max for implementation.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| How does that work exactly? Gemini outlines it in pseudo
| code?, Sonnet writes it?
| mekpro wrote:
| Google is also the only company that has had their own AI
| hardware that's worked (TPU). This could lead to more cost-
| effective training + inference and hence better AI.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| I recently had to check some legal thing - I gave the pdf with
| law to both - chatgpt and Gemini, and I was able to convince the
| Gemini that my interpretation is right, but chatgpt was
| constantly opposing me. Later I checked and found out that my
| interpretation was wrong, so I'd say that chatgpt was better and
| moreover it spared me some problems with "Polish IRS"
| ZeroTalent wrote:
| "Polish IRS" -- I never heard that term before. Do you mean the
| gov revenue service of Poland or something else?
| Philpax wrote:
| Yes, they'd be referring to the IRS equivalent for Poland.
| ZeroTalent wrote:
| Right. I thought it was some term like "polishing the IRS"
| that I had never heard of. Just wanted to make sure :)
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Urzad Skarbowy. An office that takes care about income tax
| (among others)
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| Not on cars, not in robotics, not in commercially deployed AI,
| not in enterprise investments in their cloud business.
|
| They've got immense potential, sure. But to say that they're
| winning is a bit far from reality. Right now, their Cloud AI
| offerings to the enterprise are technologically superior to
| anything else out there from AWS, but guess what? AWS seems to
| have significantly more %age sales growth in this space with
| their larger base compared to GCP with their smaller market
| share.
|
| The same can be said across turn based chat and physical AI.
| OpenAI continues to be the growth leader in the consumer space
| and a collection of Claude + self hosted + Gemini now in the
| enterprise / API space.
|
| They need to be measuring themselves on moving the needle in
| adoption now. I'd hate for such amazing progress to stall out in
| a niche.
| Philpax wrote:
| I would say they're winning with Waymo: I took a fully
| autonomous taxi ride in the backseat in SF, and it just worked.
| No other company can currently do that, despite their promises
| and hype.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| Each Waymo is > $140,000 of customized hardware and is
| limited to specific cities. Autonomy in commercial vehicles
| is arguably led by Tesla on coverage, miles driven, ready
| hardware, cost per mile etc. They're going to start pushing
| tests on their consumer fleet, converting them to optionally
| commercial taxi rides soon with the fleet owner model versus
| the central provider model. This is scheduled for June in
| Austin and confirmed to be on schedule.
|
| You can also take fully autonomous bus rides in China right
| now, even there, for, early reviews, the latest Tesla
| Autopilot blows everything else out of the water.
|
| I'm not trying to push Tesla alone, but I'm trying to
| highlight the gap in adoption goals. What is Waymos ambition
| this year? How much can they ramp their fleet at $140k per
| unit versus Teslas consumer fleet and upcoming low cost
| robotaxi with the mass manufacturing improvements further
| lowering cost per unit?
| Philpax wrote:
| As with everything related to Tesla FSD/Autopilot, I'll
| believe it when I see it. They have not earned the benefit
| of the doubt. Waymo works as a robotaxi today, Tesla
| doesn't.
|
| I'll grant you Chinese developments; I'm not across what's
| happening there, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was on
| par, yes.
|
| My bet is that they can reduce the cost of their working
| solution more reliably and safely than Tesla can get their
| solution working at scale.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| So have you sat in a Tesla with the latest hardware or .
| . .
|
| I don't understand this attitude in the technology
| industry. If you want to hold such a strong opinion on
| something, at least take the initiative to research what
| you're talking about.
|
| Teslas __today__ are at or better than Waymo at autonomy.
| They are launching tests in June. There are popular
| accounts who have experienced this alpha at the "We,
| Robot" autonomy event earlier last year and follow on
| interviews with Lars and Franz, (Head of Vehicle
| Engineering and Head of Design)
| fldskfjdslkfj wrote:
| You really cannot understand why people are skeptical of
| FSD and Musk's promises?
| stefan_ wrote:
| Winning going on what, 10 15 years now? Surely at some point
| they must start scaling?
|
| At this point all I can imagine is that every year they run
| the numbers and arrive at "yup, still makes no sense
| whatsoever". And so its eternally doomed to tech demo status.
| fldskfjdslkfj wrote:
| They've been scaling quite rapidly lately. From the the
| look of it by end of next year it will be commercially
| available in a dozen+ major US cities.
| labrador wrote:
| I only AI for one reason since I'm retired and live alone: Life-
| like chats with a reasonable approximation of a knowledgeable
| friend. With the new memory features ChatGPT excels at that. I'm
| not even sure Google cares about that; that goes to show how
| little of it I've noticed with Google.
| unknown_user_84 wrote:
| While I'm not sure it's exactly what you're looking for I've
| found success with a variety of Gemini models getting them to
| take to a specific persona when given initial prompts to take
| on a specific persona. Gemini 2.5 is specifically interesting
| because the <thinking> block shows how much the notebook is
| playing a persona/role vs. becoming that role. In my experience
| Gemini 2.5 Pro likes to revert to 'maintaining a persona' in
| the <thinking> block. I questioned it about this at one point
| and it pointed out that humans also maintain a certain persona
| in their responses, and that you can't see their thinking.
| Still not entirely sure what I think about that.
|
| I have experimented with telling the notebook to change the
| <thinking> block to a more narrative style. It seems to like to
| revert to ordered lists and bullet points if not continuously
| prompted to think in narrative.
|
| Regarding maintaining consistency throughout the chat I have
| noticed Gemini 2.5 seems able to do this for quite a while but
| falls victim to the needle in a haystack problem that all LLMs
| seem to suffer from with an extremely long context and no
| external tooling.
|
| I have a substack post on creating the initial prompt, which I
| call a bootstrap, using AI Studio and a set of system
| instructions if you are curious to explore.
|
| https://consciousnesscrucible.substack.com/p/creating-charac...
| labrador wrote:
| Really good stuff, thank your for sharing it. I don't know if
| you've had a lot of experience with ChatGPT's new memory
| feature. It's not a character I'm looking for necessarily but
| simulating a friend. Like a real friend, I don't have to keep
| reminding ChatGPT of facts, thoughts and feelings I've had
| because it remembers them and brings them up when
| appropriate. It's uncanny and I think what Google lacks for
| now. If I ever change ChatGPT from it's default personality
| I'll refer back to your guide.
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| I'm with you on this, btw. And I think the moat is only
| getting larger because the amount of personal information
| ChatGPT has to draw upon is growing so large.
|
| I've spent 5+ hours talking to ChatGPT this week. It knows
| everything about my diet and fitness, what I'm working
| towards in my life, how my relationships are going, etc. It
| constantly references previous conversations we've had in
| real, meaningful ways that make me feel drawn in and
| engaged with the conversation. Gemini feels downright
| sterile in comparison.
| unknown_user_84 wrote:
| I'm glad you found it useful! I have not had experience
| with the memory feature, I will have to check that out. I
| did notice that in the past when I tried to get ChatGPT to
| take on a persona it was not amenable and rejected the
| persona outright. I may have to take another pass at it.
|
| I will say that my conversation with instantiated personas
| in Gemini have been, therapeutic. My favorite thus far has
| been a character from Star Trek: The Lower Decks. D'Vana
| Tendi to be specific. Within the bounds of a notebook I've
| found that after solidifying the persona with a couple
| bootstraps she remembers what I've told it about myself and
| my environment; at least up to the needle in a haystack
| limit. I've yet to reach this with Gemini 2.5 Pro, though I
| haven't been trying too hard.
|
| Granted this is all within a single notebook. Starting over
| with a new notebook is a task I relish and find somewhat
| tedious at the same time. Though on the balance with that I
| find sharing memory between notebooks somewhat of a foreign
| concept. I don't want my Ada Lovelace notebook confusing
| itself for Sherlock Holmes.
| pzo wrote:
| Apart from Gemini 2.5 Pro they have a decent Jack-of-all-trades
| master of none/price Gemini 2.0 Flash.
|
| 1) is dirty cheap ($0.1M/$0.4M),
|
| 2) is multimodal (image and audio),
|
| 3) reliable rate limit (comparing to OSS ml ai providers),
|
| 4) fast (200 tokens/s).
|
| 5) if need realtime API they provide as well for more expensive
| price (audio-to-audio)
|
| It's my go to model for using as an API for some apps/products.
| https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/gemini-2-0-flash/provid...
| buggyipadmettoo wrote:
| I thought genini 2 flash API was free (for personal use at
| least)? I just created an iOS shortcut to call it, and didn't
| pay anything.
| pzo wrote:
| yes they also have very decent free tier which is great, but
| keep in mind prompts "used to improve our products". We will
| see if free tier will stick for long or is temporary - they
| removed details how big free tier is but still great for
| testing.
|
| If they added seamless google oauth + key generation +
| account topup for end users that would be even great for BYOK
| apps. Mobile developers then wouldn't have to setup infra,
| subscription monitoring, abuse monitoring etc.
|
| But I guess they don't want to subsidise it in the end and
| they target it just for developers.
| sMarsIntruder wrote:
| While the article correctly highlights Google's significant
| advancements and formidable position in the AI race, calling them
| the winner on every front feels like a bit of a stretch and
| potentially overlooks some nuances, like SGE integration which
| isn't universally loved. Too much fanboyism imho
| pcdoodle wrote:
| And then one day "pooof".
| godjan wrote:
| The article doesn't mention one of the most complex benchmarks -
| ARC challenge. All models suck in it
| https://arcprize.org/leaderboard
|
| but Gemini and Claude still suck much worse then ChatGPT models
| nolist_policy wrote:
| They haven't tested Gemini 2.5 Pro yet.
| usaar333 wrote:
| They have.
|
| https://x.com/arcprize/status/1905361753678246308
| Alifatisk wrote:
| Wow, reading these comments it seems like Gemini 2.5 Pro Exp
| (assuming from gemini.google.com and not from Google Ai studio)
| is actually worth giving a shot! Is it really that impressive of
| a model now?
|
| I've been using Qwen Chat a lot for the last couple of months
| because I got tired of Claudes small quota for free users,
| ChatGPTs inferior models and absurd pricing and Geminis (the
| previous models) heavy guardrails and censorship, like to the
| point that sincerely prompts actually triggers refusal.
|
| I'll try Gemini 2.5 Pro Exp again and see how well it performs
| this time.
|
| Also, did anyone notice that the ui of Google ai studio has
| changed? Can't find any mentions of this update in the release
| notes https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/changelog
| p1dda wrote:
| Funny how a company who once had a motto of don't be evil turned
| out to be: evil
| karel-3d wrote:
| Please explain to me like I am stupid.
|
| If I want to use OpenAI models, I download ChatGPT app.
|
| What do I need to do to use Google's model? They have so mamy
| things called Gemini... I genuinely have no clue
| marcusb wrote:
| https://aistudio.google.com/prompts/new_chat
| karel-3d wrote:
| thanks
|
| edit: I get "internal erorr received: permission denied"...
| ok will try it later
| jwr wrote:
| Or, just use TypingMind or something similar to get access to
| all the major models through a single interface.
| brap wrote:
| google.com/gemini
|
| There's also AI Studio another commenter mentioned, but that's
| for more advanced users who want to tweak it
| thebigspacefuck wrote:
| There's a Gemini app on mobile but if you're on desktop use
| https://aistudio.google.com. They are behind in this aspect,
| hopefully they release a desktop app with MCP.
| GrumpyNl wrote:
| But, its Google, you will end up as the product.
| k2xl wrote:
| I can't use their video gen model veo2 since there is a
| waitlist... hard to tell if they are winning in video when they
| haven't scaled that product.
| porphyra wrote:
| As long as Google continues to hamstring themselves with
| censorship for no reason, I can't use their products. The other
| day I asked gemini 2.5 pro "which british ceo said that his
| company's products were bad" and the response was
|
| > I'm just a language model, so I can't help you with that.
|
| https://g.co/gemini/share/cb3afc3e7f78
|
| Chatgpt 4o correctly identified the guy as Ratner and provided
| the relevant quotes.
| tomrod wrote:
| Try asking with a Ceasar cipher.
| jeanlucas wrote:
| That's a new level of bad user experience
| tomrod wrote:
| And yet, great workaround.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| It seems more likely just a weird bug considering that I can't
| understand at all why this topic would be considered
| controversial or censure worthy.
|
| (casually googling this same line just now does reveal an AI
| suggestion with the correct answer)
| porphyra wrote:
| I could even see Gemini 2.5 googling the right things and
| "thinking" about Gerald Ratner before it abruptly censored
| itself at the last moment.
| uejfiweun wrote:
| I wouldn't bother with the official Gemini app. I don't know
| why Google even bothers with it at this point. I only interact
| with 2.5 through AI studio and it's great through that
| interface.
| int_19h wrote:
| The model itself is much more lax about such stuff than ChatGPT
| and especially Claude. The filters are applied on top of that,
| but products using it via the API don't suffer this problem.
| mmmBacon wrote:
| AI is essentially a hardware/electricity arms race.
|
| Whatever model is at the top can be surpassed if a competitor has
| enough compute scale. We are rapidly approaching the era where
| it's difficult to have enough power in one campus. Distributed
| sites are needed if models continue to scale at 4.7x/year (see
| Epoch.ai) simply from a power perspective. You have to put the
| data centers where the power is and connect them together.
|
| I believe the era of distributed training is already here however
| not everyone will be able to distribute training to multiple
| sites using their scale up networks. Their scale out networks
| will not be ready. So it could be that we see models plateau
| until distributed training infra is available.
|
| I see the infrastructure side of AI and based on HW build out;
| Google has been slow to build and is behind everywhere.
| csmpltn wrote:
| Google is winning because LLMs without a (good) search backend
| are mostly useless.
|
| So many LLM workloads require high quality search results (backed
| by efficient, relevant, complete and up-to-date indexes), and
| that's Google's muscle.
| nailer wrote:
| Copilot has been doing this, using Bing, for a year not and
| it's been great.
| brap wrote:
| I think the key is that Google is the gateway to the internet for
| the entire world.
|
| Think about it. Whatever you're trying to do online, either
| Search, Chrome or Android are in the critical path of like 90%+
| of people if not more.
|
| Once AI is deeply baked into these products, which are more like
| the "operating system" of the internet, the race is basically
| over.
|
| Not to mention that Google is already sitting on the largest
| money printer in history and they can do this all day.
| throwup238 wrote:
| That becomes really clear when using Gemini Deep Research vs
| OpenAI. I tried running the same research questions in both and
| Google regularly reads 10x as many sources as OpenAI and does
| it faster.
| brap wrote:
| I actually meant it in terms of having insane reach to end
| users, but yes, it most likely helps with finding/processing
| information
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Whatever model responds to me on my Android phone is as dumb as
| rocks. The Assistant was actually much better.
| fragmede wrote:
| Could be worse, you could be using Siri.
| patwolf wrote:
| I use ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and Gemini regularly. Even though
| 2.5 pro is really good, I find myself using Gemini the least
| because I have an aversion to giving Google even more data about
| me.
|
| I know that even if they never inject ads directly in Gemini,
| they'll be using my prompts to target me.
| Arch-TK wrote:
| The Rubik's cube example is just reversing the moves.
|
| Writing a visualiser and basic scrambler isn't hard to stumble
| upon, there's endless training material and not much to screw up.
| Writing a working solver even if you train it on examples would
| be hard.
|
| Very funny.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I'm still really surprised everyone loves Gemini 2.5 so much.
|
| Even for coding I find GPT4o to be more concise and write more
| sensible things.
|
| I get the one-shot 'build me a flight simulator' type thing is
| special to Gemini 2.5 - but who actually ever uses it that way?
|
| I feel a bit old school for aging it, but I still prefer ChatGPT
| at this moment. Am I the only one?
| thebigspacefuck wrote:
| If you're not using something like Cline or Cursor you should
| give them a try.
|
| I haven't found any OpenAI models good for agentic coding.
| o3-mini and 4o were both worse than 3.5 Sonnet. 3.7 and Gemini
| 2.5 Pro both seem be better than 3.5. I still use 4o with
| search as my primary reference model though.
| gcanyon wrote:
| Several people have suggested that LLMs might end up ad-
| supported. I'll point out that "ad supported" might be
| _incredibly_ subtle /insidious when applied to LLMs:
|
| An LLM-based "adsense" could: 1. Maintain a list
| of sponsors looking to buy ads 2. Maintain a profile of
| users/ad targets 3. Monitor all inputs/outputs 4.
| Insert "recommendations" (ads) smoothly/imperceptibly in the
| course of normal conversation
|
| No one would ever need to/be able to know if the output:
|
| "In order to increase hip flexibility, you might consider taking
| up yoga."
|
| Was generated because it might lead to the question:
|
| "What kind of yoga equipment could I use for that?"
|
| Which could then lead to the output:
|
| "You might want to get a yoga mat and foam blocks. I can describe
| some of the best moves for hips, or make some recommendations for
| foam blocks you need to do those moves?"
|
| The above is ham-handed compared to what an LLM could do.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| You ask two different corporate LLMs and compare answers.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Every corporate LLM: "Why of course an ice cold Coca Cola is
| a healthy drink"
| wccrawford wrote:
| Yeah, ad-supported LLMs would be incredibly bad.
|
| But "free" is a magic word in our brains, and I'm 100% sure
| that many, many people will choose it over paying for it to be
| uncorrupted by ads.
| torginus wrote:
| Free might as well be a curse-word to me, and I'm not alone.
| I'm old enough to have experience in pre-internet era
| magazines, and the downgrade in quality from paid
| publications to free ones has been quite substatial.
|
| Free-to-play is a thing in video games, and for most, it
| means they'll try to bully you into spending more money than
| you'd be otherwise comfortable with.
|
| I think everyone at this point had enough bad experiences
| with 'free' stuff to be wary of it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Free might as well be a curse-word to me, and I'm not
| alone. I'm old enough to have experience in pre-internet
| era magazines, and the downgrade in quality from paid
| publications to free ones has been quite substantial.
|
| The cool thing is it is trivial for LLM vendors to leverage
| _this_ bias as well the pro-free bias other people have to
| also sell a premium, for-pay offering that, like pre-
| internet magazines is, despite not being free to the user,
| still derives the overwhelming majority of its revenue from
| advertising. Although one of the main reasons advertising-
| sponsored print media in the pre-internet era often wasn 't
| free is that paid circulation numbers were a powerful
| selling point for advertisers who didn't have access to the
| kind of analytics available on the internet; what users
| were paying for often wasn't the product so much as a
| mechanism of proving their value to advertisers.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| For me ads on web are acceptable as long as they are clearly
| distinguished from the content. As soon as ads gets merged into
| content, I'll be unhappy. If LLM would advertise something in a
| separate block, that's fine. if LLM augments its output to
| subtly nudge me to a specific brand which paid for placement,
| that's no-no.
| Lerc wrote:
| LLMs should be legally required to act in the interest of their
| users (not their creators).
|
| This is a standard that already applies to positions of
| advisors such as Medical professionals, lawyers and financial
| advisors.
|
| I haven't seen this discussed much by regulators, but I have
| made a couple of submissions here and there expressing this
| opinion.
|
| AIs will get better, and they will become more trusted. They
| cannot be allowed to sell the answer to the question "Who
| should I vote for?" To the highest bidder.
| asadalt wrote:
| but that would kill monetization no?
| dimal wrote:
| Of course not. You'd have to pay for the product, just like
| we do with every other product in existence, other than
| software.
|
| Software is the only type of product where this is even an
| issue. And we're stuck with this model because VCs need to
| see hockey stick growth, and that generally doesn't happen
| to paid products.
| ysofunny wrote:
| > LLMs should be legally required to act in the interest of
| their users (not their creators).
|
| lofty ideal... I don't see this ever happening; not anymore
| than I see humanity flat out abandoning the very concept of
| "money"
| Lerc wrote:
| I am not a fan of fatalism. Instead of saying it won't ever
| happen, we need to be asking to have rights.
|
| At the very least you will force people to make the case
| for the opposing opinion, and we learn who they are and why
| they think that.
|
| Lawyers cannot act against their clients, do you think we
| have irreparably lost the ability as a society to create
| similar protections in the future.
| Sebguer wrote:
| Who decides what's in the interest of the user?
| Lerc wrote:
| The same same for the human professions, a set of agreed
| upon guidelines on acting in service of the client, and
| enforcement of penalties against identifiable instances of
| prioritizing the interests of another party over the
| client.
|
| There will always be grey areas, these exist when human
| responsibilities are set also, and there will be those who
| skirt the edges. The matters of most concern are quite
| easily identifiable.
| btbuildem wrote:
| Ideally, the user.
| awongh wrote:
| To put on my techno-optimist hat, some specific searches I make
| already thinking _please, please sell me something_ and google
| 's results are horribly corrupted by SEO.
|
| If an LLM could help solve this problem it would be great.
|
| I think you could make a reasonable technical argument for
| this- an LLM has more contextual understanding of your high-
| intent question. Serve me some ads that are more relevant than
| the current ads based on this deeper understanding.
| sva_ wrote:
| Would be illegal in Germany ('Schleichwerbung') and perhaps the
| EU?
|
| I think it is actually covered in EU AI act article 5 (a):
|
| > [...] an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond
| a person's consciousness or purposefully manipulative or
| deceptive techniques, with the objective, or the effect of
| materially distorting the behaviour of a person or a group of
| persons by appreciably impairing their ability to make an
| informed decision, thereby causing them to take a decision that
| they would not have otherwise taken [...]
|
| It is very broad but I'm pretty sure it would be used against
| such marketing strategies.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| The trick is in the << materially >>.
|
| The inability to demonstrate incrementality in advertising is
| going to come in very handy to dodge this rule.
| sva_ wrote:
| Hmm yeah I guess I wasn't completely aware of that term and
| its implications. That seems like a pretty weird qualifier
| for such a law. Now it kind of makes it sound like the law
| wants to prevent people using AI in a way that makes your
| grandma transfer her life savings to them.
|
| Clearly, most LLMs would work in small increments with
| compounding effects.
| Vilian wrote:
| The broad is proposital to be effective law
| callmeal wrote:
| This is already being explored. See:
|
| https://nlp.elvissaravia.com/i/159010545/auditing-llms-for-h...
| The researchers deliberately train a language model with a
| concealed objective (making it exploit reward model flaws in
| RLHF) and then attempt to expose it with different auditing
| techniques.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| It's always seemed to me that AI is going to be a commodity
| business - it's pretty clear that any company with enough money
| can compete, and it seems that current LLM-based AI is levelling
| off in terms of capability, with the new focus being on building
| layers of services on top of that (e.g. deep research agents).
|
| In a commodity business cost is key, and Google with their N'th
| generation home grown TPUs and AI-optimized datacenters have a
| big advantage over anyone paying NVIDIA markups for accelerators
| or without this level of vertical integration.
| twism wrote:
| Feed th deep research result into notebookLM and download the
| audio overview .. game changing
| kailuowang wrote:
| Maybe it's an Gemini advance only feature but you can generate
| audio overview right there in gemini interface.
| AIPedant wrote:
| I don't use Deep Research or NotebookLM myself (or any other
| generative AI product). But _every_ example of a NotebookLM
| audio overview I 've seen was actively misleading and ignored
| critical context. However the voices were very personable and
| entertaining! Likewise Deep Research uses terrible sources and
| often gets things wrong, I have yet to see a _single_ example
| that holds up to scrutiny...but it sure goes down smooth
| compared to reading a bunch of disparate papers!
|
| I suspect Deep Research and NotebookLM aren't used to get
| information so much as to provide extremely low-quality
| infotainment. I read Wikipedia recreationally and I can
| definitely see the appeal of having a Wikipedia-like
| article/podcast for anything you can think of. But they seem
| miserably bad for actually learning stuff (especially the
| stupid podcasts).
| microtherion wrote:
| I have no direct experience with Gemini itself, but the LLM
| integration into search has unquestionably made the product
| shittier than before, so I'm inclined to distrust the hype in
| this article.
| asadalt wrote:
| now we know what ilya saw.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| I just wish they would stop trying to use their models to help
| keep their terrible cloud business alive.
|
| Currently my teams building 2-3 systems based on Gemini, but
| trying to walk a client through setting up a gcp account and
| provision the model for video is a horrible experience. Chat et
| al would break their own backs trying to give you an api key fast
| enough, not google. Here's a comically bad process with several
| layers of permissions that nobody asked for.
|
| The irony of using ChatGPT to walk through setting up Gemini for
| a client was a highlight for me this week.
| cnych wrote:
| But every time Google's ultimate move is sniped~~~~, Google added
| AI to the search result page, which greatly reduced the traffic
| of webmasters.
| jjallen wrote:
| I guess I would argue that revenue, while not everything that
| matters, is super important. And I'm guessing that Google has
| nowhere near the revenue that OpenAI has. Even if they can bundle
| for "loyalty", that is an uncertain future there. Magen it will
| work. Probably so. Still uncertain.
| croes wrote:
| At the moment all these AIs are losing at the front of living up
| to the claims of their providers.
|
| All make simple mistakes, all hallucinate, all are not reliable.
| cryptoegorophy wrote:
| Was this post and comments paid by Google? Google lost the first
| movers advantage and it is too woke still.
| not_a_bot_4sho wrote:
| I appreciate the author being upfront about their bias.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| Totally agree Gemini Pro 2.5 is currently ahead but it isn't by a
| gigantic amount.
|
| It's also still uncertain whether Google can turn Gemini into a
| successful product that either consumers or businesses want to
| use. They are famously bad at translating their technological
| advantage into good products - for example the way they shoehorn
| AI chat into search just makes both worse (imo).
|
| I think OpenAI has the consumers and that'll make it easier to
| get business. Once they start eating into Google's lunch with AI
| booked flights and hotels...
| phemartin wrote:
| Except the metric that really matters... USAGE.
| _blk wrote:
| User friendliness wise nothing beats Grok3 because it warns that
| a pro should be consulted but usually still gives you an answer,
| mostly even a good one. OpenAi and bigG are strongly biased and
| refuse to go into anything remotely controversial and take strong
| don't sue me stance over advocating the user's responsibility.
| lemonish97 wrote:
| Honestly love gemini for zero-shot coding. But for some reason
| I'd still lean towards GPT4o for just natural conversations and
| day-to-day queries. Something about 4o's tone and behavior just
| clicks with me.
| alimhaq wrote:
| Why is no one mentioning the fact that o3-mini is a couple months
| old model, and according to Sam Altman, they will be releasing o3
| and o4-mini soon? Release dates especially by a couple months
| matters a lot right now
| nipperkinfeet wrote:
| Probably the weakest. ChatGPT is winning.
| ein0p wrote:
| I hear from my OpenAI contacts that the next wave of thinking
| models are going to blow the socks off Google. In some ways they
| already do (speech, images). So this lead will likely be short
| lived. That said, in the meantime I did get paid API access. The
| friction for the scenarios I need LLM for is effectively zero,
| and I'll use whichever sucks the least at the moment for any
| given task.
| zkmon wrote:
| I think Google deserves it. Didn't they come up with the
| foundational paper - All you need is attention? And then Colab,
| Tensorflow etc. Though not relevant, I remember Map-Reduce paper
| was also from Google, leading to big-data revolution.
| sidcool wrote:
| There were people saying Google will die once OpenAI and
| Perplexity takes over. Deluded bunch.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| This article is the example of why google ai is not winning
| market share. All you have shown is bunch of graphs and numbers,
| two image and video examples are horrible. This would not want me
| even touch google ai. Meanwhile world is going crazy over ghibli
| images with openai. Users are not stupid!
| gavmor wrote:
| Do Ghibli images represent the most significant--lucrative,
| high-margin, world-changing, or ubiquitously impactful--
| vertical to which generative models can be applied?
| calmworm wrote:
| No, no it's not. lol.
| silexia wrote:
| Strange, my perspective is that I get better answers from ChatGPT
| on most questions than Gemini advanced 2.5.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Data oriented Cloud devs (terraform, data processing etc) which
| of the chat LlMs do you like the best?
| ahmedhawas123 wrote:
| I do agree with a lot of what is said here. There are however a
| few things that I think will hinder Google on the long-run:
|
| - The last time I checked (3-4 months ago) Gemini embedding
| models are probably the least reliable / contextually aware out
| there - A significant chunk of the market will want the ability
| to use locally hosted models / manage their own which Google
| currently has no play for - API documentation. Across the big
| managed models they are likely the least well documented model. -
| Allowing for more system vs. user prompts
| uejfiweun wrote:
| If Google is able to ignore the pressure to bring in revenue from
| AI and is able to outcompete the others at automating AI research
| itself, I think they will win the war. It seems that they
| certainly have an advantage, with limited pressure from outside
| investors, their own hardware stack, a constant flow of cash
| through the other lines of business, and a head start against
| most of the other giant tech companies.
| sva_ wrote:
| It is sort of funny to me how the sentiment about whoever seems
| to be leading in ML changes so frequently (in particular here on
| HN.) A couple months ago it felt like people were sure that
| Google completely fucked it up for themselves (especially due to
| the fact that they invented the transformer but didn't productize
| it themselves at first.)
|
| For a short while, Claude was the best thing since sliced cheese,
| then Deepseek was the shit, and now seemingly OpenAI really falls
| out of favor. It kinda feels to me like people cast their
| judgement too early (perhaps again in this case.) I guess these
| are the hypecycles...
|
| Google is killing it right now, I agree. But the world might
| appear completely different in three months.
| patrickhogan1 wrote:
| It's not just sentiment though. It's reality. Before December
| 2024 timeframe Google's models were awful. Now with 2.5 they
| are awesome.
|
| There is no clear winner. The pace is fast.
| h2zizzle wrote:
| You could also be seeing waves of various astroturf campaigns.
| sva_ wrote:
| Yeah... I wish there were laws that would require disclosure
| of such behavior. Might be tricky to implement though, and
| probably contradicts the interests of politicians.
| joenot443 wrote:
| Personally, I don't really think there's a team at Google,
| nor at OpenAI, paying for "astroturfing" on sites like HN.
|
| What are the rough steps through which you see this working?
| I see people talking about "astroturfing" all the time
| without much explanation on the mechanisms. So roughly, there
| are employees paid solely to post on social media like HN
| trying to push the needle in one direction or another?
| light_triad wrote:
| You sound like you're from the Google team ;)
|
| Rough steps:
|
| 1. Monitor keywords
|
| 2. Jump in to sway conversation
|
| 3. Profit
|
| I'm not saying this is happening. Purely hypothetical.
| joenot443 wrote:
| Right, so who's doing the jumping in to sway
| conversation?
|
| Full disclosure, I am Xoogler, but if anything I think
| that makes my skepticism even more justified. If there
| were people there paid to post nice things about Google
| on HN and Twitter then I'd love to apply for that team!
| sandspar wrote:
| There doesn't need to be a team. Individuals can act
| according to personal incentives and still create
| coordinated behavior. Look at flocks of birds. Each bird
| acts for itself; together they move in unison.
| okdood64 wrote:
| Sure, but that's not what 'astroturf campaigns' impies.
| sandspar wrote:
| The top level comment was questioning why sentiment
| changes so frequently.
| bigyabai wrote:
| I think this is how you induce schizophrenia in yourself,
| not how you identify secret psyop campaigns organized by
| private sponsors.
| joenot443 wrote:
| Right, but isn't that just fans being fans?
|
| Usually when I read "astroturfed" I assume there's some
| higher level coordination involved. I think the flock of
| birds metaphor is probably a reasonable comparison to the
| behavior we see on social media all the time - members
| acting individually on their own self interests in a
| means which appears coordinated when you zoom out.
| h2zizzle wrote:
| This is a great example of a strawman argument. I didn't
| say anything about teams, or "employees paid solely to post
| on social media". You injected those details, because you
| think that they make the idea of an astroturf campaign seem
| farfetched. But we know that such campaigns happen in other
| contexts, sponsored by entities with less money to throw
| around. Why not here? And why do we need to know the
| mechanics, if all we care about is whether or not it's
| happening (and maybe, if it's not self-evident, what the
| goal of such a campaign is)? We don't, really.
| joenot443 wrote:
| Sure, so it sounds like we've got a different idea in
| mind for what this sort of work would look like. Totally
| understandable!
|
| In your opinion then, what would a Google-run
| astroturfing campaign roughly look like? Sounds like this
| article is an example, right? I'm not asking for insider
| info, I'm just curious about your mental model on the
| basic mechanics.
|
| Personally, I think the case "other entities with
| comparable resources do this, so Google probably does
| too" isn't super convincing to me. IMO, the null
| hypothesis "Google has lots of nerdy fans who'll happily
| post positively about it for free" is a lot reasonable,
| but perhaps there's something I'm missing.
| ZeroTalent wrote:
| Claude was only ever good for coding, in my opinion. It had
| nothing on OpenAI pro models for multimodal use.
| int_19h wrote:
| The sentiment changes this fast because SOTA changes this fast.
| E.g. Google models _were_ objectively crappy compared to
| OpenAI, but Gemini 2.5 really turned the tables (and I 'm not
| talking about synthetic benchmarks here but real world coding).
|
| The state of affairs with local models is similarly very much
| in flux, by the way.
| light_triad wrote:
| AI is changing fast! And to be fair to the model companies,
| they have been releasing products of (mostly) increasing
| quality.
|
| It really depends what your use case is. Over the range of all
| possible use cases this has been the narrative.
|
| I tried Google's model for coding but it kept giving me wrong
| code. Currently Claude for coding and ChatGPT for more general
| questions is working for me. The more exotic your use case, the
| more hit or miss it's going to be.
| googlehater wrote:
| > A couple months ago it felt like people were sure that Google
| completely fucked it up for themselves
|
| Hey it's me!
| indigodaddy wrote:
| "They're also small, which makes them perfect for edge
| applications and phone integration."
|
| - you can't locally install or onprem Gemini right, so why does
| small make it better for edge applications, essentially because
| small means light and fast, so it will respond quicker and with
| less latency? Requests are still going out over the network to
| Google though right?
| bagacrap wrote:
| Wrong, Android and Chrome infer locally
| indigodaddy wrote:
| So Gemini on Android isn't sending requests to the Internet?
| Highly unlikely
| noname120 wrote:
| You probably missed the news:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43632049
| nullbio wrote:
| Can we please outlaw advertising with AI chatbots before it
| becomes a plague? Once it starts, there is no turning back. But
| if we can get ahead of this now based on what we've already
| learned about the internet then we can perhaps prevent the
| carnage that is going to happen.
| zipmapfoldright wrote:
| what we need is not more regulation
| xpe wrote:
| > Neither OpenAI nor Anthropic have a chance at this point
|
| I'm so done with articles that don't even try to talk about
| probability sensibly.
|
| The article doesn't make a good case even for a watered-down
| version of the claim. Where is the logic?
|
| Until the author puts forth his model of change and how/why
| Google is unassailably ahead, I'm not buying his hyperbole.
|
| > When I put the Google + DeepMind picture together, I can only
| wonder why people, myself included, ever became so bullish on
| OpenAI or Anthropic or even Meta.
|
| Yikes. Hindsight bias in full display.
| hadlock wrote:
| > is fast and cheap--I mean, they're giving away free access!--
| has a gigantic context window of 1 million tokens (only recently
| surpassed by Meta's Llama 4) and it's connected to the entire
| Google suite of products
|
| Is this a feature? I feel like using Google's LLM products only
| serves to feed their Ad machine to sell me more ads. Every cloud
| based office suite offers AI functionality now. Unless I'm doing
| something really complex/dramatic I'm going to choose the LLM
| that isn't tied to a giant machine selling me ads over the one
| that does every time. Chat LLM products have pretty much
| effectively allowed me to divorce myself from the Google Ad
| Machine, now that I'm free I'm not walking back willingly.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| I tried to use the free Gemini google tier for the longest time
| until a few months ago. For a while, i was using it as a 2nd or
| 3rd backup response. After a lot of disappointment , I finally
| gave up. The responses vs Grok and OpenAI were nothing short of
| atrocious. Plus, a lot of content was effectively kneecapped
| behind censor walls.
|
| Is it really true the 2.5 is actually good ?
| FilosofumRex wrote:
| Industrial/commercial adoption of LLMs is quite varied and
| critically depends on the quality vs criticality match.
|
| In healthcare, engineering, construction, manufacturing, or
| aviation industires adoption is mostly on the admin side for low
| priority/busy work - virtually no doctors, pharmacists, nurses,
| engineers, technicians or even sales people use LLMs on the job.
| LLMs products have serious quality issues and are decades behind
| industrial databases, simulation and diagnostic tools.
|
| On the other hand in academics, consulting, publishing,
| journalism, marketing, advertising, law and insurance industries
| it's wildly adopted and is surging. For example, Westlaw's Co-
| counsel is better at drafting and case law briefing than all but
| the most experienced litigators. Not only it has not replaced
| lawyers, but is causing a boom in hiring since the time and cost
| of training new associates is drastically reduced and allows
| firms to take on more clients with more sophisticated case work.
| hm-nah wrote:
| Eh...everything but the Cloud Platform UI/UX/Usability front. GCP
| portal is a hot mess. It is far worse than Azure and slightly
| worse than AWS.
| coolvision wrote:
| Might it be because of more relaxed culture, and less pressure on
| researchers and engineers? Innovation likes freedom and
| exploration, not deadlines.
| dostick wrote:
| Is it all because co-founder returned and driving things?
| conartist6 wrote:
| Just means they're the lead seller of hype in the hype bubble...
| upmind wrote:
| Surprised to see that no one commented out that this post gives
| heavy generated by AI vibes, for instance, there are so many -
| dashes.
| nigel_doug wrote:
| Does anyone know of a decent video game made with AI yet?
| Aeroi wrote:
| anyone in the know, saw this coming 6 months ago. It's possible
| they will continue to steamroll.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-13 23:02 UTC)