I was thinking about that (I definitely agree with you on the software and data angle).

But when you think about it it's actually a bit more complex. Right now (eg) OpenAI buys GPUs from (eg) NVidia, who buys HBM from Samsung and fabs the card on TSMC.

Google instead designs the chip, with I assume a significant amount of assistance of Broadcom - at least in terms of manufacturing, who then buys the HBM from the same supplier(s) and fabs the card with TSMC.

So I'm not entirely sure if the margin savings are that huge. I assume Broadcom charges a fair bit to manage the manufacturing process on behalf of Google. Almost certainly a lot less than NVidia would charge in terms of gross profit margins, but Google also has to pay for a lot of engineers to do the work that would be done in NVidia.

No doubt it is a saving overall - otherwise they wouldn't do it. But I wonder how dramatic it is.

Obviously Google has significant upside in the ability to customise their chips exactly how they want them, but NVidia (and to a lesser extent) AMD probably can source more customer workflows/issues from their broader set of clients.

I think "Google makes its own TPUs" makes a lot of people think that the entire operation in house, but in reality they're just doing more design work than the other players. There's still a lot of margin "leaking" through Broadcom, memory suppliers and TSMC so I wonder how dramatic it is really is

I think it points to OpenAI trying to pivot to leveraging their brand awareness head start and optimizing for either ads or something like the Jony Ive device- focusing on the consumer side.

For now people identify LLMs and AI with the ChatGPT brand.

This seems like it might be the stickiest thing they can grab ahold of in the long term.

You better hope Anthropic and OpenAI thrive, because a world in which Google is the sole winner is a nightmare.

Google's best trick was skirting the antitrust ruling against them by making the judge think they'd "lose" AI. What a joke.

Meanwhile they're camping everyone's trademarks, turning them into lucrative bidding wars because they own 92% of the browser URL bars.

Try googling for Claude or ChatGPT. Those companies are shelling out hundreds of millions to their biggest competitor to defend their trademarks. If they stop, suddenly they lose 60% of their traffic. Seems unfair, right?

They have over $100B in cash on hand. I can't pretend to understand their financial dealings, but they have a lot more runway before that cliff than most of the other companies.

If someone is willing to fund you with a 100y bond, and it gives you extra cash to move even a bit faster, it sounds like a pretty good deal.

One thing I don’t get though, if superintelligence is really 5 years away, what’s going to be the point of a fixed-interest 100y bond.

Don't want to sound rude, but anytime anyone says this I assume they haven't tried using agentic coding tools and are still copy pasting coding questions into a web input box

I would be really curious to know what tools you've tried and are using where gemini feels better to use

I've had the same experience with editing shaders. ChatGPT has absolutely no clue what's going on and it seems like it randomly edits shader code. It's never given me anything remotely usable. Gemini has been able to edit shaders and get me a result that's not perfect, but fairly close to what I want.

have you compared it with Claude Code at all? Is there a similar subscription model for Gemini as Claude? Does it have an agent like Claude Code or ChatGPT Codex? what are you using it for? How does it do with large contexts? (Claude AI Code has a 1 million token context).

ChatGTP isn't even meant for coding anymore, nor Gemini. It's OpenAI Codex vs Claude Code. Gemini doesn't even have an offering.

They don't have the know how (except by proxy via OpenAI) nor custom hardware and somehow they are even worse at integrating AI into their products than Google.

See Apple in my previous comment

What will happen if they go public?

That’s not a well informed argument. Even if Apple could finance the $1T+ it would cost to buy Anthropic - they’re not making that money back by making the iPhone a little better. The only way to monetize is by selling, as Anthropic does, enterprise services to businesses. And that’s not Apple’s “DNA,” to use their language.

Google is vulnerable in search and that already shows as we see a decline as many parallel paths emerge. At the beginning it was a simple lookup for valid information and it became dominant - then pages of pay ranked preference spots filled pages that obscured what you wanted = it became evil.

>Not Google.

Google's main revenue source (~ 75%) is advertising. They will absolutely try to shove in ads into their AI offerings. They simply don't have to do it this quickly.

The majority of people who use Google for AI encounter it at the top of an ad filled search engine.

> Guess who wants to shove advertisements into paying customers' face and take a % of their revenues for using their models to build products? Not Google.

But, also, probably google.

Don’t worry, Google is profiting off of your data one way or another lol

Have you tried the OpenAI deep research in the past week or so? It's been updated to use 5.2 https://x.com/OpenAI/status/2021299935678026168

(I work at OpenAI, but on the infra side of things not on models)

When you say quorum what do you mean? Is it like an agent swarm or using all of them in your workflow and independently they perform better than opus? Curious how you use (tooling and purpose - coding?)

I would not say a full year... not even close to a year: GLM-5 is very close to the frontier: https://artificialanalysis.ai/

Artificial Analysis isn't perfect, but it is an independent third party that actually runs the benchmarks themselves, and they use a wide range of benchmarks. It is a better automated litmus test than any other that I've been able to find in years of watching the development of LLMs.

And the gap has been rapidly shrinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NBILspM4c4&t=642s

That's a lot now, in the same way that a PC in 1999 vs a PC in 2000 was a fairly sizeable discrepancy. At some point, probably soon, progress will slow, and it won't be much.

SpaceX valuation is also going to be interesting. Talking about CapEx, SpaceX has deorbiting assets on top of depreciating ones. And without Starlink the space launch market size is pretty small.

Yep, SpaceX actually has a track record as an actual leader and innovator in it's niche (that's very CapEx intensive to enter), it's not really a moat but it's a lead that no other entity seems to be closing in on (on the contrary many would-be competitors seems to have almost given up).

As for OpenAI, I'm not sure if Altman is an idiot or fraudster, claims about reaching AGI/ASI with scaling and investing in that fashion was always delusional at best or fraudulent at worst, maybe he just hoped to divert enough money to engineers to make actual breakthroughs or that the hardware would become a moat but competitors have kept pace, and I fully agree that they are mostly now only hanging on with an insanely bad cost structure now.

> WeWork.. hard to take anyone seriously that ever invested in this bad boy.

Masayoshi Son may not be providing returns for its investors but he is providing entertainment for the rest of the world.

Twitter is already dead as everyone on Hacker news knew. Nobody I know uses X or whatever it's called now, xAI? I'm looking at Musk going bankrupt and as soon as that happens Trump will be Impeached.

This reminds me when F22s blasted Chinese balloons out of the sky.

Do they have enough liquidity to bribe Trump to do that?

I have no idea why they would do that. Outside blatant corruption, which we shouldn't discount.

Good point, let's all invest in the SpaceX.ai IPO

Can they? The articles said that they bought wafers, not finished RAM. Is there interest in buying something like that?

They would have to actually get fabricated first

Energy and healthcare has big AI exposure too. If it pops, you're going to be better off but not totally spared. I suppose that's probably a smart move though...

Similar. Went from near 100% VOO down to 25%, with about 50% in SCHD and the remaining 25% sitting on cash, for now.

Is high-dividend a signal that the equities are more value oriented than growth oriented?

> Valuations really aren't that crazy

Okay

I'm not so sure VXUS will protect from the AI bubble popping since ~10% of its holdings are TSMC, ASML, Samsung, Tencent, Alibaba, and SK Hynix which are all way overvalued due to the AI bubble and will most likely crater when it becomes clear the LLM companies have no business and the data center lenders start calling in their debts.

Not sure what your story has to do with the discussion at hand. On average people do not beat the market, the market can be irrational longer than you are solvent but also most people probably have not done any modeling and so these are really feelings and not real economic bets.

Of course he has. Major incumbents want regulation that makes it harder for new comers

Except when that regulation actually has teeth, which is why he opposed California’s SB 1047. I agree with GP that Altman (and all the rest) want regulation insofar as it protects their moat but no further.

we don't pay humans in the food they consume

Prices will literally have to go up by 1500x+ in the above scenario to make it cheaper for a human agent. I assure you that AWS is big losing money running Nova Lite 2 (the model I use for speed and low latency) with their own models running on their own custom chips.

I calculated the full cost of a call to be $0.05 cents a minute when handled by AI and that includes charges for a 1800 number and the varios other AWS services it uses.

Nova does the processing of the text after a separate voice to text service (Lex)