Not to mention security. I'd trust Google more not to have a data breach than open AI / whomever. Email accounts are hugely valuable but I haven't seen a Google data breach in the 20+ years I've been using them. This matters because I don't want my chats out there in public.

Also integration with other services. I just had Gemini summarize the contents of a Google Drive folder and it was effortless & effective

Don't forget the other moat.

While their competitors have to deal with actively hostile attempts to stop scraping training data, in Google's case almost everyone bends over backwards to give them easy access.

The biggest moat is amount of money. Google has infinite amounts of money the print out of thin air (ads). They don't need complex entangled schemes with circular debts to prop up their operations.

They also have one of the biggest negatives in that they abandon almost everything they build so it’s hard to get invested in thier products.

I agree with the rest though

The value of YouTube for AI isn't making AI videos, it's that it's an incredibly rich source for humanity's current knowledge in one place. All of the tutorials, lectures, news reports, etc. are great for training models.

If you think they are going to catch up with Google's software and hardware ecosystem on their first chip, you may be underestimating how hard this is. Google is on TPU v7. meta has already tried with MTIA v1 and v2. those haven't been deployed at scale for inference.

It's in Nvidia's interest to charge the absolute maximum they can without their customers failing. Every dollar of Nvidia's margin is your own lost margin. Utilities don't do that. Nvidia is objectively a way bigger liability than electricity rates.

I think it will be accepted by broader population. But if generation is easy and cheap I wonder if there is demand. And I mean as total demand in the segment. Will there be enough impressions to go around to actually profit from the content. Especially if storage is also considered.

The video data is probably good for training models, including text models.

Given the fact that Apple and Coke but rushed to produce AI slop, and the agreements with Disney, we are going to see a metric fuck-ton of AI-generated cinema in the next decade. The broader population's tastes are absolute harbage when it comes to cinema, so I don't see why you need convincing. 40+ superhero films should be enough.

>Agreed. Even xAI's (Grok's) access to live data on x.com and millions of live video inputs from Tesla is a moat not enjoyed by OpenAI.

Tesla does not have live video feed from (every) Tesla car.

Bigger problem for late starts now is that it will be hard to match the performance and cost of Google/Nvidia. It's an investment that had to have started years ago to be competitive now.

Google allowed this to happen because they listened to their compliance department and were afraid of a backslash if LLM says something that could anger people.

Sergey Brin interview: https://x.com/slow_developer/status/1999876970562166968?s=20

This attitude also partially explains the black vikings incident.

Exactly, Google's business isn't search, it's ads. Is ChatGPT a more profitable system for delivering ads? That doesn't appear so, which means there's really no reason for Google to have created it first.

Think about it in terms of the research they put out into the ether though. The research grows into something viable, they sit back and watch the response and move when it makes sense.

It's like that old concept of saying something wrong in a forum on purpose to have everyone flame you for being wrong and needing to prove themselves better by each writing more elaborate answers.

You catch more fish with bait.

I agree, but isn't the TAM for video generation all of movies, TV, and possibly video games, or all entertainment? That's a pretty big market.

What you’re competing for is people’s attention and the tam for that is biggest there is

YT is also a giant corpus of English via the transcription