They won't try to. ChatGPT is already starting with ads, which is potentially far more profitable (as evidenced by the fact that the most profitable company of all time makes 90%+ of their revenue through ads).
Google has 90% market share. DDG has 0.7%. I don't have a POV on whether AI mode is good or not, but surely there's gonna be some people who dislike it, and even if that's a tiny percentage, it can be a huge boost to DDG.
1) this article doesn't really cite that this is due to AI. It cites a reuters article which in turn cites an internal memo, which says that they need to be focused, with AI being an important initiative. So the title is a bit misleading.
2) A lot of comments here talking about turbotax. Remember that intuit also has quickbooks. Personally, i think the uses for AI in doing my taxes are limited. I don't want AI making judgement calls. However, for something like quickbooks, I can imagine many uses for AI. For example, categorizing expenses, organizing receipts, noticing odd patterns, etc.
Yeah, lots of enterprise features in the works, but first i need to raise money at a $1B+ valuation (this might seem high for a project that started 4 hours ago, but it's actually very low for the project that will soon be the #1 consumer of tokens on the planet)
Sorry, it will be a while. We're currently building out enterprise features like SSO/SAML support, role based burn access, and a carbon offset marketplace. As you can imagine, we're burning a lot of tokens to get these out, but actual productivity isn't up as much as you'd think.
Are you a startup looking to show investors your hefty AI budget? Are you an engineer trying to top the AI token leaderboard? Wanna show your friends how "AI Native" you are? Look no further, I created this for you.
Open Source isn't going anywhere. Open Contribution might be on the way out. I built an open source command line tool (https://github.com/dtnewman/zev) that went very minorly viral for a few days last year.
What I found in the following week is a pattern of:
1) People reaching out with feature requests (useful)
2) People submitting minor patches that take up a few lines of code (useful)
3) People submitting larger PRs, that were mostly garbage
#1 above isn't going anywhere. #2 is helpful, especially since these are easy to check over. For #3, MOST of what people submitted wasn't AI slop per se, but just wasn't well thought out, or of poor quality. Or a feature that I just didn't want in the product. In most cases, I'd rather have a #1 and just implement it myself in the way that I want to code organized, rather than someone submitting a PR with poorly written code. What I found is that when I engaged with people in this group, I'd see them post on LinkedIn or X the next day bragging about how they contributed to a cool new open-source project. For me, the maintainer, it was just annoying, and I wasn't putting this project out there to gain the opportunity to mentor junior devs.
In general, I like the SQLite philosophy of we are open source, not open contribution. They are very explicit about this, but it's important for anyone putting out an open source project that you have ZERO obligation to accept any code or feature requests. None.
Presumably the issue here is that you have customers with >10k records, but can't show them. Why not take their data and anonymize it, then put it under a fake customer?
> "what does error handling look like with real load?"*
I find it hard to believe that anyone is making an investment decision off of this question, but how would you demo this with a real customer anyway? Intentionally introduce a bug so that you can show them how errors are handled? Wouldn't the best course of action here be to just describe the error handling?
> The current landscape is a battle between loss-leaders. OpenAI is burning through billions of dollars per year and is expected to hit tens of billions in losses per year soon. Your $20 per month subscription to ChatGPT is nowhere near keeping them afloat. Anthropic’s figures are more moderate, but it is still currently lighting money on fire in order to compete and gain or protect market share.
I don't doubt that the leading labs are lighting money on fire. Undoubtedly, it costs crazy amounts of cash to train these models. But hardware development takes time and it's only been a few years at this point. Even TODAY, one can run Kimi K2.5, a 1T param open-source model on two mac studios. It runs at 24 tokens/sec. Yes, it'll cost you $20k for the specs needed, but that's hobbyist and small business territory... we're not talking mainframe computer costs here. And certainly this price will come down? And it's hard to imagine that the hardware won't get faster/better?
Yes... training the models can really only be done with NVIDIA and costs insane amounts of money. But it seems like even if we see just moderate improvement going forward, this is still a monumental shift for coding if you compare where we are at to 2022 (or even 2024).
General rule... you have zero obligation to merge any code to your repo, much less bad code, or very large hard-to-review submissions.
I think that it's bad manners for someone to submit a big PR without prior experience with the project. Someone needs to earn trust over time. They might start out with a few small PRs and gradually build up to the point where you might trust them with a larger change. But even so, a 4k-line PR is very unreasonable.
I think what this misses is that insurers handle the hassle of dealing with negotiated rates.
As an example, if you go to the ER and get a strep test, you might be billed $500, and insurance will pay $7 (as ridiculous as this sounds). If you go at this on your own, they'll probably bill you $100 and tell you they are giving you an 80% discount. With lots of phone calls, you can maybe get them down to $50.
This is all obviously crazy. But it makes it such that you really do want insurance if you can afford it. More so, even if you are a billionaire and can afford to self insure, it still makes sense to have health insurance (whereas property or life insurance probably don't make sense for you).
Also, don't forget that insurance premiums are often tax deductible for wealthy people, so the actual amount paid is less.