Comment by bloppe

Comment by bloppe 15 hours ago

34 replies

To be fair, I would get a ton of value out of someone selling dollars for 20 cents apiece.

But ya, OAI is clearly making a ton of revenue. That doesn't mean it's a good business, though. Giving them a 20 year horizon, shareholders will be very upset unless the firm can deliver about a trillion in profit, not revenue, to justify the 100B (so far) in investment, and that would barely beat the long term s&p 500 average return.

But Altman himself has said he'll need much more investment in the coming years. And even if OAI became profitable by jacking up prices and flooding gpt with ads, the underlying technology is so commodified, they'd never be able to achieve a high margin, assuming they can turn a profit at all.

usef- 10 hours ago

People did say the same thing about Youtube, which was unprofitable and extremely expensive to run in the early years. I remember thinking everyone would leave once ads were added.

At youtube's ad income rate (~$13/year), the current (but growing) ~800 million chatgpt users would add ~$10 billion. At facebook's rate (~$40-50/year) $32-40 billion. Potentially, an assistant would be more integrated into your life than either of those two.

The "audience retention" is the key question, not the profitability if they maintain their current audience. I've been surprised how many non-technical people I know don't want to try other models. "ChatGPT knows me".

  • hansmayer 13 minutes ago

    Minor difference : YT does not cost literally a human trip to Mars and back to operate

  • adgjlsfhk1 8 hours ago

    the problem with the YouTube analogy is that media platforms have significant network affects that NN providers don't. OpenAI can't command a premium because every year that goes by the cost to train an equivalent model to theirs decreases.

    • usef- 8 hours ago

      Youtube didn't either at the time. The front page was widely seen as garbage, and everyone I knew watched videos because they were embedded or linked from external sites. "If they introduced ads, people will just switch to other video hosts, wont they?". Many of the cooler creators used Vimeo. It was the good recommendation algorithm that came later, that I think allowed an actual network effect, and I don't remember people predicting that.

      The field is too young to know what will keep users, but there are definitely things that plausibly could create a lock-in effect. I mentioned one ("ChatGPT knows me") which could grow over time as people have shared more of themselves with ChatGPT. There's also pilots of multi-person chats, and the social elements in Sora. Some people already feel compelled to stick to the "person" they're comfortable talking to. The chance of OpenAI finding something isn't zero.

      • polishTar 5 hours ago

        That's a bit revisionist. Network effects were obvious when Google acquired Youtube. Google Video had the edge technically, but it didn't matter because Youtube had the users/content and Google saw that very clearly in their user growth before they made their offer.

  • bloppe 5 hours ago

    The network effects aren't the same. All the viewers watch youtube because it has all the content, and all the creators post on youtube because it has all the viewers.

    How can a model achieve this kind of stickiness? By "knowing you"? I don't think that's the same at all. Personally, one of the reasons I prefer Claude is that it doesn't pretend to know me. I can control the context better.

  • usef- 7 hours ago

    I suspect some of the downvoters hate the idea of ads, which is understandable.

    But a lot of HN users use gmail, which has the same model. And there are plenty of paid email providers which seem far less popular (I use one). Ads didn't end up being a problem for most people provided they were kept independent of the content itself.

    • skydhash 2 hours ago

      1. Gmail is free

      2. I’ve never seen ads on the Gmail webapp (It sure does data collection)

littlestymaar 15 hours ago

I'd be a little bit more nuanced:

I think there's something off with their plans right now: it's pretty clear at this point that they can't own the technological frontier, Google is just too close already and from a purely technological PoV they are much better suited to have the best tech in the medium term. (There's no moat and Google has way more data and compute available, and also tons of cash to burn without depending on external funding).

But ChatGPT is an insane brand and for most (free) customers I don't think model capabilities (aka “intelligence”) are that important. So if they stopped training frontier models right now and focus on driving their costs low by optimizing their inference compute budget while serving ads, they can make a lot of money from their user base.

But that would probably mean losing most of its paying customers over the long run (companies won't be buying mediocre token at a premium for long) and more importantly it would require abandoning the AGI bullshit narrative, which I'm not sure Altman is willing to do. (And even if he was, how to do that without collapsing from lack of liquidity due to investors feeling betrayed is an open question).

  • array_key_first 12 hours ago

    Being an insane brand means literally nothing if people can trivially switch to competitors, which they can.

    There isn't even a tenth of enough money if you group together all of advertising. Like, the entire industry. Ads is a bad, bad plan that wont work. Advertising is also extremely overvalued. And even at it's overvalued price tag, it's nowhere near enough.

    • whalee 10 hours ago

      People could trivially switch their search engine to Bing or Yahoo, but they don't.

      If ads are so overpriced, how big is your short position on google? Also ads are extremely inefficient in terms of conversion. Ads rendered by an intelligent, personalized system will be OOM more efficient, negating most of the "overvalue".

      I'm not saying they should serve ads. It's a terrible strategy for other reasons.

      • I-M-S 10 hours ago

        Funny that you mention Yahoo, as in my mind they're the perfect example of what the poster above you noted: people quickly switched to Google once a better alternative to Yahoo appeared.

      • timr 9 hours ago

        You know that Google literally spends billions to ensure that people don’t switch, right?

        That’s possible because they’re immensely profitable.

    • sophia01 10 hours ago

      It's Coca Cola vs Pepsi. Yes some might even say Pepsi has been shown to taste better, but people still buy loads of Coke.

      Of course the tech savvy enterprises will use the best models. But the plumber down the road doesn't care whether she asks Gemini or ChatGPT about the sizing of some fittings.

      • adgjlsfhk1 8 hours ago

        right, but casual users aren't paying (and won't ever)

        • littlestymaar 5 hours ago

          Users aren't paying for Google or Facebook either. Advertisers do.

    • pjaoko 11 hours ago

      > Being an insane brand means literally nothing if people can trivially switch to competitors, which they can.

      Logically speaking, yes it is easy to switch between OAI and Gemini, or Coke and Pepsi. But brand loyalty is more about emotions (comfort, familiarity,..) rather logical reasoning.

  • bloppe 14 hours ago

    The best way to drive inference cost down right now is to use TPUs. Either that or invest tons of additional money and manpower into silicon design like Google did, but they already have a 10 year lead there.

    • littlestymaar 5 hours ago

      > The best way to drive inference cost down right now is to use TPUs

      TPUs are cool, but the best leverage remains to reduce your (active) parameters count.

  • TheOtherHobbes 13 hours ago

    Altman's main interest is Altman. ChatGPT will be acquihired, most people will be let go, the brand will become a shadow of its former self, and Altman will emerge with a major payday and no obvious dent in his self-made reputation as a leading AGIthinkfluenceretc.

    I don't think ads are that easy, because the hard part of ads isn't taking money and serving up ad slop, it's providing convincing tracking and analytics.

    As soon as ad slop appears a lot of customers will run - not all, but enough to make monetisation problematic.

    • a_victorp 5 hours ago

      This! Most people that don't work on adtech have no idea how hard it is to: 1. Build a platform that offers new advertising inventory that advertisers can buy 2. Convince advertisers to advertise on your platform 3. Show advertisers that their advertising campaigns in your platform are more successful than in the several other places they can advertise

  • po 8 hours ago

    as long as the business model is:

    - users want the best/smartest LLM

    - the best performance for inference is found by spending more and more tokens (deep thinking)

    - pricing is based on cost per token

    Then the inference providers/hyperscalers will take all of the margin available to app makers (and then give it to Nvidia apparently). It is a bad business to be in, and not viable for OpenAI at their valuation.

    • littlestymaar 5 hours ago

      What I'm saying ils that I'm not sure the first point is true.

      I think they all have become sufficiently good for most people to stick to what they are used to (especially in terms of tone/“personality” + the memory shared between conversations).

  • riffraff 14 hours ago

    > But ChatGPT is an insane brand

    I mean, so was netscape.

    • cmiles8 14 hours ago

      This. Netscape was THE browser in the early phases of the Internet. Then Microsoft just packaged IE into Windows and it was game over. The brand means nothing long term. If Google broadly incorporates Gemini into all the Google-owned things everyone already has then it’s game over for OpenAI.

      The mass commoditization of the tech is rapidly driving AI to be a feature, not a product. And Google is very strongly positioned to take advantage of that. Microsoft too, and of course they have a relationship with OpenAI but that’s fraying.

      • cruffle_duffle 9 hours ago

        To be completely fair the later versions of Netscape were increasingly giant bloated piles of crap while IE slowly caught up and surpassed in terms of speed and features. The first versions IE were only good for downloading Netscape.

        Netscape, to a large degree, killed itself.

        Not to say IE turned into anything good though. But it did have its hayday.

    • littlestymaar 14 hours ago

      Maybe, I was too young to remember that.

      • littlestymaar an hour ago

        What's up with the flock of downvotes? I'd never got a comment with so many as this one… Is being younger than 45 not allowed in here?