Is this true now?

The models are better, the integrations are now in your email, search, youtube, docs, spreadsheets, slides, Gemini is now higher than ChatGPT in the App Stores

I think you are right with the timeline being Google was infinitely ahead in the beginning, did nothing, then fell behind, but right now, they feel ahead -- established even, and distributing AI into all their products

I’ll concede it’s my impression not any facts, but when I talk to non-tech users they tend to hate the ai being embedded in all of their apps. I think the ai google search results are at best polarizing.

For technical users it’s very rare to hear people picking Gemini for general use cases unless they are required to for other reasons.

Google models do seem to get used a lot for specialized tasks though.

Your efficiency is having the $$ spent on goods worth the $$ given. However, the goal of food banks is to spend money on FOOD and make sure the FOOD is given out to those in need (with little wasteage). Efficiency is being measured completely differently than what you are hoping it is measured as.

This does not happen, if you forgo one month of rent you have to have kept prices up significantly to make up for the loss. The only reason this could happen is if your loan terms are pegged to rent roll (usually only on commercial properties).

an example: $5000/mo apartment generates $60,000 a year; forgoing one month of rent means you have to now generate $60,000 of revenue in 11 months, which in a bad market will likely not rent for $5450 if it didn't rent for $5000. Your mortgage still continues to pile up along with insurance and taxes, so you can't escape the hole.

Is there any link directly to the report? I am unable to find any in this article or a number of others which seem to just copy the same information here.

I think beyond the number of crazy assumptions (no Google taking market share in the consumer market?? only 2% of digital advertising expected to be captured by OpenAI?) it is hard to nail down which levers could move which might make this funding hole disappear.

No, and there never will be. The second you ask anyone for hard numbers about OpenAI’s (or any AI’s) unprofitability, everyone evaporates (which is weird considering how quantitative the HN crowd tries to be, compared to, say, reddit). Everything is just “professional opinions” on economics by tech bro bloggers.

I'm not looking for OpenAI numbers, I'm looking for the HSBC report which would contain more numbers regarding how they did their estimates.

Because the internet is far more optimized at capturing your attention and encouraging terrible behavior (purchases, viruses, scams, etc.)

When you were younger the scariest thing was joining an AOL chat room on a 56k modem. Now you can mind rot yourself on YouTube shorts with the next video loading in milliseconds while being fed content full of sports gambling ads.

To act like the internet doesn’t have significantly sharper edges and dangerous loops which affect children is ignoring the reality around you. The downvotes are not because in principle folks disagree, it’s that the situation is different.

i don't think the situation was that different. You could mind rot yourself on shfifty-five and all sorts of terrible content. People are just making an educated decision that that's not what they want for their kids. Parenting, how bout it.

Using invasive surveillance tech to govern is not needed then. If you can't handle the full service (on both ends) of the technology, then you can't deploy it and have to use regular old police work or legacy techniques to enforce it.

Using this tech is not mandatory to have governance.

Yes they absolutely can, none of the things you mentioned are protected classes and they are a private company.

I'm not sure why you would feel entitled to make a purchase on their site outside of their (whatever reasonable or unreasonable) rules may be.

They all gerrymander though. But that’s not the point. The point is fleeing cities is what conquered people do. It wouldn’t even be hard to win them.

Okay but OP wasn't suggesting it solves for ALL people who can't drive. Reducing human driving is a massive safety win (if they can continue to be safer than human drivers)

It does one better, it holds the passenger who created the mess accountable for the cost and then drops them off the service. You get some bad actors, but you can quickly weed them out.

Doesn't change the service outage piece, but it will get better.

That being said, your key point - people can do what they want in this thing and no one can really stop them, does stand.