  OpenAI, Anthropic, and others will be bought for cents on the dollar.

OpenAI is existential threat to all big tech including Meta, Google, Microsoft, Apple. Hence, they're all spending lavishly right now to not get left behind.

Meta --> GenAI Content creation can disrupt Instagram. ChatGPT likely has more data on a person than Instagram does by now for ads. 800 million daily active users for ChatGPT already.

Google --> Cash cow search is under threat from ChatGPT.

Microsoft --> Productivity/work is fundamentally changed with GenAI.

Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the OS instead of relying on iOS.

I'm betting that OpenAI will emerge bigger than current big tech in ~5 years or less.

▲ j_w 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the OS instead of relying on iOS.

Yeah... No they can't. I don't agree with any of your "disruptions," but this one is just comically incorrect. There was a post on HN somewhat recently that was a simulated computer using LLMs, and it was unusable.

	▲	aurareturn 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I find myself doing more and more inside ChatGPT. When ChatGPT inevitably can generate GUIs on the fly, book me an uber, etc. I don't see why iOS wouldn't have competition.

▲ r053bud 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’ll HAPPILY bet that it won’t. $10,000 to a charity of each other’s choosing?

▲ nabla9 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OpenAI has no technical moat (others can do what they do), generate content, all have the same data.

OpenAI does not expect to be cash-flow positive until 2029. When no new capital comes in, it can't continue.

OpenAI can's survive any kind of price competition.

▲ aurareturn 16 hours ago | parent [-]

They consistently have the best or second best models.

They have infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active users.

Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion.

There's price competition right now. They're still surviving. If there is price competition, they're the most likely to survive.

▲ NumberCruncher 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users.

Even worse, they train their model(s) on the interactions of those non-paying customers, what makes the model(s) less useful for paying customers. It's kind of a "you can not charge for a Porsche if you only satisfy the needs of a typical Dacia owner".

▲ aurareturn 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

  They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users.

I don't pay Meta any money too. Yet, Meta is one of the most profitable companies in the world.

I give more of my data to OpenAI than to Meta. ChatGPT knows so much about me. Don't you think they can easily monetize their 800 million (close to 1 billion by now) users?

	▲	consp a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Meta has the giant advantage that other people interact with your data. I think that is widely more valuable than what chat engines have.

▲ nabla9 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion.

Your premise is that there is no bubble. We are talking about what happens when bubble bursts. Without investor money drying out there is no bubble.

▲

aurareturn 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I think we are in 1995 of the dotcom bubble for AI.

▲

gizajob 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

More like 1998

▲

arunabha 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Clearly, a lot of people here disagree with you. Doesn't mean you cannot be right, but in general, the HN crowd is a pretty good predictor of the trends in the tech industry.

	▲	aurareturn 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The mass is usually wrong on predicting these kinds of events. I don't see why HN is any different than Reddit group think.

▲ jimbokun 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What if investors stop giving them money before they IPO?

▲ nomel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the OS instead of relying on iOS.

Or, instead of spending billions training models that are nearly all the same, they instead take advantage of all the datacenter full of GPUs, and AI companies frantically trying to make a profit, many most likely crashing and burning in the process, to pay relative pennies to use the top, nearly commoditized, model of the month?

Then, maybe someday, starting late and taking advantage of the latest research/training methods that shave off years of training time, save billions on a foundation model of their own?

I don't think it makes sense for Apple to be an AI company. It makes sense for them to use AI, but I don't see why everyone needs to have their own model, right now, during all the churn. It's nearly already commodity. In house doesn't make sense to me.

▲ bigstrat2003 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OpenAI has yet to make a single, solitary thing that works well. It's nothing but Sam Altman hyping things. They aren't an existential threat to anyone.

	▲	tim333 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		ChatGPT 3 and 4 were impressive and kind of kicked off the current AI boom/bubble. Since then though, Altman changing the non-profit OpenAI into a kind of for profit Closed AI seems to have led to a lot of talent leaving.

▲ officeplant 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Apple --> OpenAI can make a device that runs ChatGPT as the OS instead of relying on iOS.

Ah yes, PromptOS will go down in the history books for sure.

▲ thewebguyd 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'm betting that OpenAI will emerge bigger than current big tech in ~5 years or less.

I seriously doubt it. If this bubble pops, the best OpenAI can hope for is they just get absorbed into Microsoft.