upvote
Difference is that it was free to google/bing search. Ai prompting costs money.

If I run out of tokens on ChatGPT of course I will try Claude. I never ran out of Google searches so no reason to try Bing

reply
You haven't searched hard enough then.

At some point Google gets suspicious of your persistent searches and makes you solve captchas and puts cooldowns on your searches.

reply
OpenAI has a free tier. I'm guessing a lot of people never need to upgrade. Not the case for me but I can see the average person only needing to run a few prompts every day.
reply
My understanding is that most OpenAI users are on a free tier. Secondary effect of this is that OpenAI free tier model capability (assuming Luna) is what what most users associate with frontier AI capability giving somewhat warped view to many people.
reply
> If I run out of tokens on ChatGPT of course I will try Claude.

More like the other way around - Claude burns tokens faster than any other LLM.

reply
> OpenAI could still have a significant moat. ChatGPT occupies most consumers’ minds when they think about AI and has become a household name.

ChatGPT is AI for the average non-techie the world over, but the average non-techie isn't eager to pay for it. The more progress that's made, the less incentive to pay - most people are happy with the total garbage spewed by google AI overview. They'd be happy with google's 30b MoE gemma, whose performance will likely be squeezed down to something that can run on a phone in 2-3 years. Why would they pay $20 a month?

It's why OpenAI is pushing a variety of things such as ads and offer a more polished ui/ux than the competition, I think. The models are already good enough for people who just want to know how much sugar to add to their cake or when's the next basketball match their team plays - it's OpenAI's game to lose those people, by annoying UX and whatnot. If they can make a few bucks off of every one of their non-paying users it'll stretch their runway immensely. Those users will never go to Antrophic or some cheap Chinese model, but they might defect to Google because a popup on Android / in Chrome told them to.

reply
Yeah, I think most people here don't realize how far most of the population is on the adoption curve with this stuff.

I had a discovery call last week with someone who did not realize he could use ChatGPT for work. It was a revelation that he could drag a PDF into ChatGPT and it could summarize it for him.

FWIW, guy in his late-30s in a pretty senior sales role.

reply
Codex has 20 million users and growing. There is a possibility that they take a huge chunk of the coding agent market share.
reply
Mass adoption isn’t where the money is, though. It doesn’t matter if ChatGPT has 1 billion users if they won’t pay for it.
reply
> If OpenAI and Anthropic are smart, they will maintain similar pricing rather than aggressively undercutting each other, allowing the market to resemble Home Depot and Lowe’s, or cloud computing, where AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure coexist as highly profitable competitors.

Wouldn't that just be price fixing? If they arrive at their prices independently and they all happen to be similar, fine. But if they're all "smart" and coordinate so none of them undercuts the other, that's probably illegal.

reply
Illegal for sure but rarely enforced.
reply
My understanding is that collusion among competitors is illegal (although I’m not a lawyer). I was referring instead to the prisoner’s dilemma that Bruce Greenwald discusses in Competition Demystified. In theory, competitors, like prisoners who are pitted against one another to rat on one another, are usually better off cooperating rather than turning against each other.
reply
Never in my life have I bought any of the household names when it comes to household equipments. Of course, I use the household names’ names when I speak about wipes, washing powder, glue, etc., but never ever would I pay the 2x to 5x premium. Same will be true for most people with regard to “intelligence”, as long as it’s suffices their needs. Thats the crucial part. Cloud computing, on the other hand, has a massive lock-in. But more importantly, their ideosyncratic ways of doing things leads to tribalism. It’s so much harder to move running processes from one provider to another without interruption than just changing an API key or the URL for your chatbot.
reply
Their current strategy is "make the product affordable in tiny little bursts here and there." That is not a great way to build a moat.
reply
That's just the first mover moat, OP was worried about intelligence itself being monopolized.
reply