I wonder at what point will everyone who over-invested in OpenAI will regret their decision (expect maybe Nvidia?). Maybe Microsoft doesn't need to care, they get to sell their models via Azure.
Very soon, because clearly OpenAI is in very serious trouble. They are scaled and have no business model and a competitor that is much better than them at almost everything (ads, hardware, cloud, consumer, scaling).
Oracle's stock skyrocketed then took a nosedive. Financial experts warned that companies who bet big on OpenAI like Oracle and Coreweave to pump their stock would go down the drain, and down the drain they went (so far: -65% for Coreweave and nearly -50% of Oracle compared to their OpenAI-hype all-time highs).
Markets seems to be in a: "Show me the OpenAI money" mood at the moment.
And even financial commentators who don't necessarily know a thing about AI can realize that Gemini 3 Pro and now Gemini 3 Flash are giving ChatGPT a run for its money.
Oracle and Microsoft have other source of revenues but for those really drinking the OpenAI koolaid, including OpenAI itself, I sure as heck don't know what the future holds.
My safe bet however is that Google ain't going anywhere and shall keep progressing on the AI front at an insane pace.
OpenAI's doom was written when Altman (and Nadella) got greedy, threw away the nonprofit mission, and caused the exodus of talent and funding that created Anthropic. If they had stayed nonprofit the rest of the industry could have consolidated their efforts against Google's juggernaut. I don't understand how they expected to sustain the advantage against Google's infinite money machine. With Waymo Google showed that they're willing to burn money for decades until they succeed.
This story also shows the market corruption of Google's monopolies, but a judge recently gave them his stamp of approval so we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
I agree, I have said it before, ChatGPT is like Photoshop at this point, or Google. Even if you are using Bing you are googling it. Even if you are using MS Paint to edit an image it was photoshopped.
> I don't understand how they expected to sustain the advantage against Google's infinite money machine.
I ask this question about Nazi Germany. They adopted the Blitkrieg strategy and expanded unsustainably, but it was only a matter of time until powers with infinite resources (US, USSR) put an end to it.
I know you're making an analogy but I have to point out that there are many points where Nazi Germany could have gone a different route and potentially could have ended up with a stable dominion over much of Western Europe.
Most obvious decision points were betraying the USSR and declaring war on the US (no one really had been able to print the reason, but presumably it was to get Japan to attack the soviets from the other side, which then however didn't happen). Another could have been to consolidate after the surrender/supplication of France, rather than continue attacking further.
Lots of plausible alternative histories don't end with the destruction of Nazi Germany. Others already named some, another is if the RAF collapsed during the Battle of Britain and Germany had established air superiority. The Germans would have taken out the Royal Navy and mounted an invasion of Britain soon after; if Britain had fallen there'd have been nowhere for the US to stage D-Day. Hitler could have then diverted all resources to the eastern front and possibly managed to reach Moscow before the winter set in.
Huh? How did the USSR have infinite resources? They were barely kept afloat by western allied help (especially at the beginning). Remember also how Tsarist Russia was the first power to collapse and get knocked out of the war in WW1, long before the war was over. They did worse than even the proverbial 'Sick Man of Europe', the Ottoman Empire.
Not saying that the Nazi strategy was without flaws, of course. But your specific critique is a bit too blunt.
