| ▲ | cmiles8 3 hours ago |
| The real code red here is less that Google just one-upped OpenAI but that they demonstrated there’s no moat to be had here. Absent a major breakthrough all the major providers are just going to keep leapfrogging each other in the most expensive race to the bottom of all time. Good for tech, but a horrible business and financial picture for these companies. |
|
| ▲ | an0malous 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > for these companies They’re absolutely going to get bailed out and socialize the losses somehow. They might just get a huge government contract instead of an explicit bailout, but they’ll weasel out of this one way or another and these huge circular deals are to ensure that. |
| |
| ▲ | abixb 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >They’re absolutely going to get bailed out and socialize the losses somehow. I've had that uneasy feeling for a while now. Just look at Jensen and Nvidia -- they're trying to get their hooks into every major critical sector as they're able to (Nokia last month, Synopsys just recently). When chickens come home to roost, my guess is that they'll pull out the "we're too big to fail, so bailout pls" card. Crazy times. If only we had regulators with more spine. | |
| ▲ | willis936 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This would trigger something that people in power would rather not trigger. | | |
| ▲ | bibimsz an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | the only thing power is concerned about is China dominating American in AI, because of the military and economic edge it would give them. Future wars will be AI fighting against AI. | |
| ▲ | watwut an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nah, people in power are openly and blatantly corrupt and it does a little. People in power dont care and dont have to care. | | |
| |
| ▲ | mywittyname 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Absolutely. And they will figure out how to bankrupt any utilities and local governments they can in the process by offloading as much of their costs overhead for power generation and shopping for tax rebates. |
|
|
| ▲ | qnleigh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe there's no tangible moat still, but did Gemini 3's exceptional performance actually funnel users away from ChatGPT? The typical Hacker News reader might be aware of its good performance on benchmarks, but did this convert a significant number of ChatGPT users to Gemini? It's not obvious to me either way. |
| |
| ▲ | originalvichy 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Definitely. The fact that they inject it into Google Search means that even fewer people who have never used ChatGPT or just used it as a "smarter" Google search will just directly try the search function. It is terrible for actually detailed information i.e. debugging errors, but for summarizing basic searches that would have taken 2-3 clicks on the results is handled directly after the search. I feel bad for the website hosts who actually want visitors instead of visibility. | |
| ▲ | Tycho 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They integrated it into Google search immediately so I think a lot of people will bother less with ChatGPT when a google search is just as effective. | |
| ▲ | nateglims 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the theory is if you get to that point, it's already over. |
|
|
| ▲ | turnsout 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Absolutely. I don't understand why investors are excited about getting into a negative-margin commodity. It makes zero sense. I was an OpenAI fan from GPT 3 to 4, but then Claude pulled ahead. Now Gemini is great as well, especially at analyzing long documents or entire codebases. I use a combination of all three (OpenAI, Anthropic & Google) with absolutely zero loyalty. I think the AGI true believers see it as a winner-takes-all market as soon as someone hits the magical AGI threshold, but I'm not convinced. It sounds like the nuclear lobby's claims that they would make electricity "too cheap to meter." |
| |
| ▲ | turtletontine 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don't understand why investors are excited about getting into a negative-margin commodity. It makes zero sense. Long term, yes. But Wall Street does not think long term. Short or medium term, you just need to cash out to the next sucker in line before the bubble pops, and there are fortunes to be made! | |
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's the same reason for investing in every net-loss high-valuation tech startup of the past decade. They're hoping they'll magically turn into Google, Apple, Netflix, or some other wealthy tech company. But they forget that Google owns the ad market, Apple owns the high-end/lifestyle computer market, and Netflix owns tv/movie habit analytics. Investors in AI just don't realize AI is a commodity. The AI companies' lies aren't helping (we will not reach AGI in our lifetimes). The bubble will burst if investors figure this out before they successfully pivot (and they're trying damn hard to pivot). |
|
|
| ▲ | dist-epoch 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So why did Google stock increase massively since about when Gemini 2.5 Pro was released, their first competitive model? |
| |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s not evidence of anything in and of itself. RIMs stock price was at its highest in 2009 two years after the iPhone came out. | |
| ▲ | hiddencost 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because Google already has many healthy revenue streams that will benefit from LLMs and all it has to do in the AI space is remain competitive. |
|
|
| ▲ | numbers_guy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yep, I thought they might have some secret sauce in terms of training techniques, but that doesn't seem to be the case. |
|
| ▲ | daxfohl 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Especially if we're approaching a plateau, in a couple years there could be a dozen equally capable systems. It'll be interesting to see what the differentiators turn out to be. |
