But there's no moat around these models, they're all interchangeable and leapfrogging each other at a decent pace.
Gemini could get much better tomorrow and their entire customer base could switch without issue.
What was the moat in search?
Readit NewsYou understand that doing an IPO is quite literally selling big chunks of yourself to the highest bidder, right?
The current leadership retains power in an IPO. Is there a minimum size chuck one has to sell when IPO-ing? How do you know it will be big chunks?
> They’re profitable serving current models including training costs
I hear this a lot, do you have a good source (apart from their CEO saying it in an interview). I might have more faith in him but checks notes, it's late 2025 and AI is not writing all our code yet (amongst other mental things he's said).
We will all have a great source if they IPO :)
> They have a clear path to profitability
I'd love to see evidence for such a thing, because it's not clear to me at all that this is the case.
I personally think they're the best of the model providers but not sure if any foundation model companies (pure play) have a path to profitability.
What do you mean by pure play? Claude code alone is 1B revenue. It's not just the API they make money on.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-acquires-bun-as-cla...
You're only seeing those ads because the ad algorithm knows you. My family aren't getting Claude ads. They wouldn't know the first thing about it even if it were explained to them.
I saw a Claude ad before watching Wicked for Good in the theater. I was surprised.
Scaling is not over, there's no wall.
Oriol Vinyals VP of Gemini research
https://x.com/OriolVinyalsML/status/1990854455802343680?t=oC...
He didn't say it's over, just that continued scaling won't be transformational.
that's why I always identify the central position of any argument and take it. that way noone can accuse me of hubris
You can take a position without being sure about it. e.g. "I'm at 70% that AI is a bubble."
"Neither happened"? I wasn't aware the OpenAI capped-profit corp had a funding problem?
A lot of funding was predicated on them making the transition. Also they would not have been able to IPO without the transition, so there was a funding problem when you look at it that way.
Here’s an analogy that might help:
Imagine if an executive was running the world’s largest charity for cancer research, which was chartered to make sure a cure remained in the public trust and raised millions with that promise.
But then once they discovered a cure for cancer the executive instead decided to transfer that cure to a ruthlessly competitive company they personally owned a large percentage of and then become a billionaire many times over.
I thought Altman didn't own hardly any equity.
Wasn't this the case with the 2.5 Flash models too? I remember being very confused at that time.
To me it seems like the big model has been "look what we can do", and the smaller model is "actually use this one though".