I imagine Meta users know Llama too?
People still call it "Kleenex" when they're using any old facial tissue. They may still call it "ChatGPT" when it's coming from Google.
No, average people are nowhere near that tech-savvy. Just because every mom in the 90s called every video game console a "Nintendo" did not mean that Sony didn't mop the floor with Nintendo in that era. This isn't brand loyalty, it's brand genericity. Other than, say, Replika-style users who have formed an emotional bond with a certain style of chatbot, no average joe on the planet gives a damn whether the LLM powering their chat is provided by OpenAI or Google or etc. They'll use whatever's in front of them and most convenient, and unlike Google, Apple, or Microsoft, OpenAI doesn't own the platform that establishes the crucial defaults that nearly no user ever changes.
Yeah man, absolutely! Ads can pay for all of it!
> It's nonsensical
Yep, wanting a business to be profitable before investing in it, or at least to show that it could be profitable by providing a plan and timeline to profitability, is too much to ask for nowadays. Of course companies can be successful and great without any clear path to profitability, hype and enthusiasm are enough, just look at the great success of WeWork and Adam Neumann!
Who are we to doubt that? Just keep repeatedly giving couple of trillions to Sama and all will be okay, AGI is just behind the corner, trust him bro.
To be profitable, they'd need to monetize those free users for an average of $17/year or $1.5/month.
Do you realize how low that is ? Yes, ads even implemented in an uninspiring fashion would more than cover that. With some thought into it ? Well, You don't need to be a genius to see the potential of directly weaving paid recommendations naturally into conversations when appropriate.
Gemini is a google default so why isn't it used anywhere near a much as chatGPT ?
Meta has stuffed their llama model into Instagram, Whatsapp, Facebook and god knows what so why isn't it used anywhere near as much as chatGPT ?
In all the time these players pushed their apps and models to their billions of users, chatGPT's userbase has been growing massively.
Clearly people do care about using chatGPT and specifically chatGPT and what would be the 'existential crisis' by the incumbent players has come and gone, with Open AI unscathed.
Go out on the the street of Anytown in any western country, and people know "ChatGPT".
A friend of mine is a teacher, and told me that at a recent school board meeting there was discussion about implementing AI into the learning curriculum. And to the board, "AI" and "ChatGPT" were used interchangeably. There was no discussion of other providers or models, because "AI" is "ChatGPT".
That's why OpenAI has these huge projections. When average people are asked to reach for AI, they reach for ChatGPT.