Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Matthew Prince reveals Cloudflare will block Google by default starting mid-September for ad- and subscription-supported sites, and expects the largest publishers to follow "What we've said at Cloudflare is that by mid-September we're going to treat Google the same way. If you're a business that's ad-supported or subscription-supported, then...

firesidealpha's profile picture

Fireside Alpha

20,399 subscribers

86,858 просмотров • 19 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 2

Фото профиля Fireside Alpha
Fireside Alpha19 дней назад

Ft @eastdakota @Kantrowitz Link:

Фото профиля Apoorv Sharma | SEO and GEO for B2B SaaS
Apoorv Sharma | SEO and GEO for B2B SaaS18 дней назад

@grok how are people reacting to this news?

Похожие видео

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.
4:13

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

Ricardo

251,186 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

We talked to Matthew Prince 🌥 (Co-Founder & CEO Cloudflare) about their latest initiative: "Our new threat is AI companies. Publishers aren't getting traffic because people are reading derivatives, not the content." "Starting on July 1, if you're using Cloudflare, you can by default block any AI crawlers from taking your content without compensating you." "We realized there was something we could do to change the way that the Internet works."
2:37

We talked to Matthew Prince 🌥 (Co-Founder & CEO Cloudflare) about their latest initiative: "Our new threat is AI companies. Publishers aren't getting traffic because people are reading derivatives, not the content." "Starting on July 1, if you're using Cloudflare, you can by default block any AI crawlers from taking your content without compensating you." "We realized there was something we could do to change the way that the Internet works."

TBPN

40,389 просмотров • 1 год назад

Arteta asked if Arsenal will ‘park the bus’ against Manchester City: “We're not going to propose a game like this because we never do that. Sunday's opponent is that good, that forces you to be there. And in City's case, you're going to have to have moments that you're going to have to defend deep in your box for periods of time, and that's the reality.”
0:36

Arteta asked if Arsenal will ‘park the bus’ against Manchester City: “We're not going to propose a game like this because we never do that. Sunday's opponent is that good, that forces you to be there. And in City's case, you're going to have to have moments that you're going to have to defend deep in your box for periods of time, and that's the reality.”

Connor Humm

163,829 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

I'm going through the Google News Initiative (Google News Initiative) and today's session was about ad revenue. Took a few minutes to offer some thoughts on how Google's HCU was hurting small publishers, and express concerns over their decision to block links to California publishers. We were told at the beginning of the session that it was being recorded on Google's end, to include comments made in the chatroom. Some of the issues I address: 1.) Google's HCU (Helpful Content Updates) are prioritizing SPAM-written content over original, authoritative pieces, contrary to Google's assertion that it rewards helpful, original content with rank. 2.) Google's Google SearchLiaison has heard complaints from me and other publishers for months, and has offered an unsatisfactory "we'll pass it along." 3.) Google appears aware of the issues, but hasn't addressed or fixed them. 4.) Google is further penalizing California publishers by deliberately not linking to news content out of protest of pending state legislation that specifically addresses Google's outsized control over the Internet and attempts (albeit through flawed reasoning) to level the playing field. 5.) While there was a part in today's session about "recapturing" revenue, no one addressed how publishers can navigate the ever-changing Google Search algorithms and other times when Google decides on a whim to move the goal posts to the detriment of good, original content publishers. I had a direct pipeline to Google today, and felt I had to speak up on behalf of other small and niche publishers who have been just as impacted and who feel they have no voice. Lily Ray 😏 Barry Schwartz John 🧀 ... 🧀 CA News Publishers Association News/Media Alliance Media Guild of the West 🧭 PacificMediaWorkers
9:09

I'm going through the Google News Initiative (Google News Initiative) and today's session was about ad revenue. Took a few minutes to offer some thoughts on how Google's HCU was hurting small publishers, and express concerns over their decision to block links to California publishers. We were told at the beginning of the session that it was being recorded on Google's end, to include comments made in the chatroom. Some of the issues I address: 1.) Google's HCU (Helpful Content Updates) are prioritizing SPAM-written content over original, authoritative pieces, contrary to Google's assertion that it rewards helpful, original content with rank. 2.) Google's Google SearchLiaison has heard complaints from me and other publishers for months, and has offered an unsatisfactory "we'll pass it along." 3.) Google appears aware of the issues, but hasn't addressed or fixed them. 4.) Google is further penalizing California publishers by deliberately not linking to news content out of protest of pending state legislation that specifically addresses Google's outsized control over the Internet and attempts (albeit through flawed reasoning) to level the playing field. 5.) While there was a part in today's session about "recapturing" revenue, no one addressed how publishers can navigate the ever-changing Google Search algorithms and other times when Google decides on a whim to move the goal posts to the detriment of good, original content publishers. I had a direct pipeline to Google today, and felt I had to speak up on behalf of other small and niche publishers who have been just as impacted and who feel they have no voice. Lily Ray 😏 Barry Schwartz John 🧀 ... 🧀 CA News Publishers Association News/Media Alliance Media Guild of the West 🧭 PacificMediaWorkers

Matthew Keys

30,340 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Impeccable creator Paul Bakaus says AI should be cognitive delegation, not cognitive surrender: "Cognitive delegation is, I'm using Google Maps, and Google Maps tells me where I can go as quickly as possible." "But what if I let Google Maps decide where I want to go to? Now I kind of cognitive surrender to the application, and I think that's very true for LLMs if you're not careful." "You prompt something, and then it creates a beautiful plan, and then it's eight pages long. You're not going to read through that plan. You're going to scroll through that plan and skim it, and it's like, 'I guess the model knows what it's doing.'" "I think delegating to the model is great, but preserving that point of view, making sure that you're still the one driving is also really important." Paul Bakaus
1:49

Impeccable creator Paul Bakaus says AI should be cognitive delegation, not cognitive surrender: "Cognitive delegation is, I'm using Google Maps, and Google Maps tells me where I can go as quickly as possible." "But what if I let Google Maps decide where I want to go to? Now I kind of cognitive surrender to the application, and I think that's very true for LLMs if you're not careful." "You prompt something, and then it creates a beautiful plan, and then it's eight pages long. You're not going to read through that plan. You're going to scroll through that plan and skim it, and it's like, 'I guess the model knows what it's doing.'" "I think delegating to the model is great, but preserving that point of view, making sure that you're still the one driving is also really important." Paul Bakaus

a16z

79,882 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Catherine Austin Fitts: "The problem isn't that [our] currency is fiat...[and] you are not going to fix this situation by going to gold...the central bankers have accumulated all [of it]. [And] now...you're [saying] we're going to go to a gold system? Are you out of your mind?" This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a discussion with Jerm Warfare posted to the UK Column News (UK Column) YouTube channel on January 26, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "The thing that makes the current system what they would call slavery is debt-basing and secrecy, okay? And the failure of their elected representatives to obey the law. "So you have lawlessness, you have debt basing and you have secrecy, okay? The problem is not that the currency is fiat, because what I will tell you is if you go back through history, if you read Alexander Del Mar, the most effective currencies in the world are fiat currencies that are well governed. "We have a debt-based fiat currency that is not well governed in my opinion. But it could be. Now, remember, there has been almost no support in the general population for managing it responsibly. Everybody was like, no, don't manage it responsibly, get me my check. And if that means you're irresponsible, that's okay, I want my check. "But you are not going to fix this situation by going to gold and silver. You're going to make it much worse. Because while we've done this sort of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, for 30 years the central bankers have accumulated all the gold. So now that they have all the gold, you're going to tell me we're going to go to a gold system? Are you out of your mind? "Because now they've got the gold and if you start a gold transaction system now you need gold from them and they've got you over a barrel, right? And what are you going to do to get gold? You're going to have to sell your land, you're going to have to sell your kids, you're going to have to sell real assets to get their gold, right? Why would you do that? "Why would you create— You know, you're dependent on your enemy now you're going to increase your dependency on your enemy now. You're out of your mind, okay? That's not a sound money system. Especially because they want to make it digital. And so they're going to have fiat gold, which is even— I mean, if you think fiat is bad, wait til you see fiat gold when they own all the gold. "So you know, what we want is we want a fiat system and we want it with lawful and no secrecy or minimal secrecy. You're going to have to have some secrecy and a good governance system. Can we get there? Of course we can get there, but we can't get there if you have an entire population that is absolutely committed to corrupt short-term behavior."
2:40

Catherine Austin Fitts: "The problem isn't that [our] currency is fiat...[and] you are not going to fix this situation by going to gold...the central bankers have accumulated all [of it]. [And] now...you're [saying] we're going to go to a gold system? Are you out of your mind?" This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a discussion with Jerm Warfare posted to the UK Column News (UK Column) YouTube channel on January 26, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "The thing that makes the current system what they would call slavery is debt-basing and secrecy, okay? And the failure of their elected representatives to obey the law. "So you have lawlessness, you have debt basing and you have secrecy, okay? The problem is not that the currency is fiat, because what I will tell you is if you go back through history, if you read Alexander Del Mar, the most effective currencies in the world are fiat currencies that are well governed. "We have a debt-based fiat currency that is not well governed in my opinion. But it could be. Now, remember, there has been almost no support in the general population for managing it responsibly. Everybody was like, no, don't manage it responsibly, get me my check. And if that means you're irresponsible, that's okay, I want my check. "But you are not going to fix this situation by going to gold and silver. You're going to make it much worse. Because while we've done this sort of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, for 30 years the central bankers have accumulated all the gold. So now that they have all the gold, you're going to tell me we're going to go to a gold system? Are you out of your mind? "Because now they've got the gold and if you start a gold transaction system now you need gold from them and they've got you over a barrel, right? And what are you going to do to get gold? You're going to have to sell your land, you're going to have to sell your kids, you're going to have to sell real assets to get their gold, right? Why would you do that? "Why would you create— You know, you're dependent on your enemy now you're going to increase your dependency on your enemy now. You're out of your mind, okay? That's not a sound money system. Especially because they want to make it digital. And so they're going to have fiat gold, which is even— I mean, if you think fiat is bad, wait til you see fiat gold when they own all the gold. "So you know, what we want is we want a fiat system and we want it with lawful and no secrecy or minimal secrecy. You're going to have to have some secrecy and a good governance system. Can we get there? Of course we can get there, but we can't get there if you have an entire population that is absolutely committed to corrupt short-term behavior."

Sense Receptor

36,952 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Should Google Acquire HubSpot? on friday's episode, the besties covered reports that $GOOG was considering making a bid to purchase $HUBS Chamath Palihapitiya asked david friedberg, if you were Google, would you rather spend: -- $50B to acquire HubSpot -- or $5B to acquire Perplexity? david friedberg thinks $GOOG should focus on $HUBS to protect its massive ad business: "you're protecting a quarter-trillion dollar ad business. hubspot makes $2B in revenue, so it's 1% of the size of google's ad business, and it helps you lock in some percentage of that $250B." @jason explains why the acquisition would be accretive: the data! "i think this is about the data. these are the leads and the great contacts in the database of the customer, which google doesn't have access to. if google knows the leads that are already in there, they can retarget them across their entire ad network, which is the largest in the world."
0:51

Should Google Acquire HubSpot? on friday's episode, the besties covered reports that $GOOG was considering making a bid to purchase $HUBS Chamath Palihapitiya asked david friedberg, if you were Google, would you rather spend: -- $50B to acquire HubSpot -- or $5B to acquire Perplexity? david friedberg thinks $GOOG should focus on $HUBS to protect its massive ad business: "you're protecting a quarter-trillion dollar ad business. hubspot makes $2B in revenue, so it's 1% of the size of google's ad business, and it helps you lock in some percentage of that $250B." @jason explains why the acquisition would be accretive: the data! "i think this is about the data. these are the leads and the great contacts in the database of the customer, which google doesn't have access to. if google knows the leads that are already in there, they can retarget them across their entire ad network, which is the largest in the world."

The All-In Podcast

34,231 просмотров • 2 лет назад

.President Donald J. Trump: "We're going to guarantee that we have a strong business for many years to come... we're going to give a guarantee that the business will not be terminated by the ups and downs of the world of politics... they're going to have to go through hell to close you up."
1:28

.President Donald J. Trump: "We're going to guarantee that we have a strong business for many years to come... we're going to give a guarantee that the business will not be terminated by the ups and downs of the world of politics... they're going to have to go through hell to close you up."

Rapid Response 47

77,269 просмотров • 1 год назад

.Secretary Marco Rubio: "What we're interested in is not their press conferences. What we're interested in is whether or not ships are moving. If ships are moving as they should be moving, then that's what we're going to judge and that's what we're going to react to. If, on the other hand, this rhetoric is backed up by actual ships being threatened and ships not moving—that's a violation of the agreement, and we're going to have a problem with it."
0:36

.Secretary Marco Rubio: "What we're interested in is not their press conferences. What we're interested in is whether or not ships are moving. If ships are moving as they should be moving, then that's what we're going to judge and that's what we're going to react to. If, on the other hand, this rhetoric is backed up by actual ships being threatened and ships not moving—that's a violation of the agreement, and we're going to have a problem with it."

Rapid Response 47

234,876 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Interesting turn of events with Nancy Guthrie case (mother of NBC host kidnapping) The woman the FBI got the Nest camera footage from didn’t have a Premium subscription Yet without a subscription, even being disabled, it was able to record and store footage “We are tracked, they are listening, they are watching, we are being recorded” What’s happening is even if you don’t have a subscription Google is recording and storing the footage from your doorbell camera, but you can only access it without a subscription You think it’s not being recorded and stored, but it is…. Even with the camera disabled, it was recording footage and able to be recovered… “Nancy Guthrie had a Nest camera, which is owned by Google, and law enforcement initially believed the doorbell footage was lost and said Nancy Guthrie did not have a premium subscription to access video from her doorbell camera — Now, according to Google, if a Nest camera is disabled, it can still record up to three hours of event video history without a subscription. So many are wondering, why did it take so long for this video to be released? Well, it takes time for authorities to basically recover this video from Google servers, since Nancy Guthrie did not have a premium subscription that offers special features for video history. And essentially, video is continuously recorded and saved with a subscription, but without a subscription, video is saved until it's overwritten. In this case, they thought because there was no subscription, it would have been erased and recorded over because it would be sort of a continuous situation. And then that's the real issue here. Look, we live in a surveillance economy and as much as we'd like to think that we can delete things and things will go away, and there are some apps that in fact make things go away, the truth of the matter is that we are tracked, They are listening, they are watching, we are being recorded.”
2:49

Interesting turn of events with Nancy Guthrie case (mother of NBC host kidnapping) The woman the FBI got the Nest camera footage from didn’t have a Premium subscription Yet without a subscription, even being disabled, it was able to record and store footage “We are tracked, they are listening, they are watching, we are being recorded” What’s happening is even if you don’t have a subscription Google is recording and storing the footage from your doorbell camera, but you can only access it without a subscription You think it’s not being recorded and stored, but it is…. Even with the camera disabled, it was recording footage and able to be recovered… “Nancy Guthrie had a Nest camera, which is owned by Google, and law enforcement initially believed the doorbell footage was lost and said Nancy Guthrie did not have a premium subscription to access video from her doorbell camera — Now, according to Google, if a Nest camera is disabled, it can still record up to three hours of event video history without a subscription. So many are wondering, why did it take so long for this video to be released? Well, it takes time for authorities to basically recover this video from Google servers, since Nancy Guthrie did not have a premium subscription that offers special features for video history. And essentially, video is continuously recorded and saved with a subscription, but without a subscription, video is saved until it's overwritten. In this case, they thought because there was no subscription, it would have been erased and recorded over because it would be sort of a continuous situation. And then that's the real issue here. Look, we live in a surveillance economy and as much as we'd like to think that we can delete things and things will go away, and there are some apps that in fact make things go away, the truth of the matter is that we are tracked, They are listening, they are watching, we are being recorded.”

Wall Street Apes

255,091 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

You are the habits you create and your habits are built by a way of thinking. What if YOUR private and personal local AI can help you help build the right habits? What would your world look like? “OpenAI” or Google isn’t going to sell this. It will be FREE and open source.
0:44

You are the habits you create and your habits are built by a way of thinking. What if YOUR private and personal local AI can help you help build the right habits? What would your world look like? “OpenAI” or Google isn’t going to sell this. It will be FREE and open source.

Brian Roemmele

124,200 просмотров • 1 год назад

MASSIVE. HHS Secretary Bobby Kennedy says we will have an answer by September as to what is causing the childhood autism epidemic. RFK: "We've launched a massive testing and research effort that's going to involve hundreds of scientists from around the world. By September we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we'll be able to eliminate those exposures." POTUS: "Think of that. So it was 1-in-10,000 children had autism. Now it's 1-in-31. That's a horrible statistic. You think you're going to have a pretty good idea, huh?" RFK: "We will know by September." POTUS: "There will be no bigger news conference."
1:53

MASSIVE. HHS Secretary Bobby Kennedy says we will have an answer by September as to what is causing the childhood autism epidemic. RFK: "We've launched a massive testing and research effort that's going to involve hundreds of scientists from around the world. By September we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we'll be able to eliminate those exposures." POTUS: "Think of that. So it was 1-in-10,000 children had autism. Now it's 1-in-31. That's a horrible statistic. You think you're going to have a pretty good idea, huh?" RFK: "We will know by September." POTUS: "There will be no bigger news conference."

Charlie Kirk

1,061,953 просмотров • 1 год назад

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."
2:00

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."

The All-In Podcast

100,683 просмотров • 1 год назад

Tony Blair, "By force of events, Britain and Europe have cooperated more together in the last weeks than the past year" "By the middle of this century you're going to have three superpowers, America, China and India" "The question for Europe is simple. Can we get our act together to sit at that table on equal terms?" "If we can't sit at that table on equal terms, the three giants are going to do what they want without us" "What matters to be at that table? You need an economy that's strong enough; in the technology sector. That's going to be a big determinant in the future" "You're going to have military capability" "And political cohesion to carry the positions you want" "If we want to be powerful enough, in an era where otherwise these powers are going to dominate" "If you don't carry something to the table, the giants tend to sit on everyone else, which is what giants do" "So if you don't want them to sit on you, you have to be big enough so that they can't" #RejoinEU
2:37

Tony Blair, "By force of events, Britain and Europe have cooperated more together in the last weeks than the past year" "By the middle of this century you're going to have three superpowers, America, China and India" "The question for Europe is simple. Can we get our act together to sit at that table on equal terms?" "If we can't sit at that table on equal terms, the three giants are going to do what they want without us" "What matters to be at that table? You need an economy that's strong enough; in the technology sector. That's going to be a big determinant in the future" "You're going to have military capability" "And political cohesion to carry the positions you want" "If we want to be powerful enough, in an era where otherwise these powers are going to dominate" "If you don't carry something to the table, the giants tend to sit on everyone else, which is what giants do" "So if you don't want them to sit on you, you have to be big enough so that they can't" #RejoinEU

Farrukh

58,900 просмотров • 1 год назад

Here is the actual GOP candidate for President of the United States attempting to say something about Mark Zuckerberg which is literally all I can figure out from this 90-SECOND LONG SENTENCE. 😵‍💫 “So Mark Zuckerberg called me first of all he called me a few times she called me after the event that he said that was really amazing it was very brave and you know and he actually announced he's not going to support a Democrat because he can't because he respected me for what I did that day I think what I did maybe was a norm to me it was a normal response but I was called by Mark Zuckerberg yesterday the day before on this same subject and he actually apologized he said they made a mistake etc etc in the correcting mistake a Google nobody called from Google one of the things I do in a show like yours you you show you know you see them Fox but what you really see it is all over the place they take clips of your show that you're doing right now with me and if I do a good job they're going to vote for me they're going to vote for me because it's not just on Fox it's on Fox is a smaller part of it you're on all over this those little beautiful cell phones you're on you're all over the place you have a product you have a great product you have a great brand so you have to get out you have to get out you have to do things like your show and other shows and Google has been very bad they've been very irresponsible and I have a feeling that Google isn't going to be close to shut down because I don't think Congress is going to take it I really don't think so Google has to be careful now I will say this I believe Mark Zuckerberg he called me so he called me a lot they are working and I think they fixed it but what can he's not doing what he did four years ago with the five hundred million dollars I don't believe.”
1:30

Here is the actual GOP candidate for President of the United States attempting to say something about Mark Zuckerberg which is literally all I can figure out from this 90-SECOND LONG SENTENCE. 😵‍💫 “So Mark Zuckerberg called me first of all he called me a few times she called me after the event that he said that was really amazing it was very brave and you know and he actually announced he's not going to support a Democrat because he can't because he respected me for what I did that day I think what I did maybe was a norm to me it was a normal response but I was called by Mark Zuckerberg yesterday the day before on this same subject and he actually apologized he said they made a mistake etc etc in the correcting mistake a Google nobody called from Google one of the things I do in a show like yours you you show you know you see them Fox but what you really see it is all over the place they take clips of your show that you're doing right now with me and if I do a good job they're going to vote for me they're going to vote for me because it's not just on Fox it's on Fox is a smaller part of it you're on all over this those little beautiful cell phones you're on you're all over the place you have a product you have a great product you have a great brand so you have to get out you have to get out you have to do things like your show and other shows and Google has been very bad they've been very irresponsible and I have a feeling that Google isn't going to be close to shut down because I don't think Congress is going to take it I really don't think so Google has to be careful now I will say this I believe Mark Zuckerberg he called me so he called me a lot they are working and I think they fixed it but what can he's not doing what he did four years ago with the five hundred million dollars I don't believe.”

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

2,250,292 просмотров • 2 лет назад

.Rob Miles is spitting fire: “People are starting from a prior in which ‘[AIs] are safe until you give me an airtight case for why they're dangerous.’ This framing is exhausting. You explain one of the 10,000 ways that AIs could be dangerous, then they explain why they don't think that specific thing would happen. Then you have to change tack, and then they say, 'your story keeps changing'... "If you're building an AGI, it's like building a Saturn V rocket [but with every human on it]. It's a complex, difficult engineering task, and you're going to try and make it aligned, which means it's going to deliver people to the moon and home again. People ask “why assume they won't just land on the Moon and return home safely?" And I'm like, because you don't know what you're doing! If you try to send people to the moon and you don't know what you're doing, your astronauts will die. [Unlike the telephone, or electricity, where you can assume it’s probably going to work out okay] I contend that ASI is more like the moon rocket. "The moon is small compared with the rest of the sky, so you don't get to the moon by default - you hit some part of the sky that isn't the moon. So, show me the plan by which you predict to specifically hit the moon." And then people say, “how do you predict that [AIs] will want bad things?” There's more bad things than good things! It's not actually a complicated argument... I'm not going to predict specifically where it off into random space your astronauts are going, but you're not going to hit the moon unless you have a really good, technically clear plan for how you do it. And if you ask these people for their plan, they don't have one. What's Yann Lecun’s plan?” "I think that if you're building an enormously powerful technology and you have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen, this is bad. Like, this is default unsafe. If you've got something that's going to do enormously influential things in the world, and you don't know what enormously influential things it's going to do, this thing is unsafe until you can convince me that it's safe." HOST: “That’s a good way of thinking about it - with some technologies you can assume that the default will be good or at least neutral, or that the capacity of a person to use this in a very bad way is bounded somehow. There's just only so many people you could electrocute one by one."
5:30

.Rob Miles is spitting fire: “People are starting from a prior in which ‘[AIs] are safe until you give me an airtight case for why they're dangerous.’ This framing is exhausting. You explain one of the 10,000 ways that AIs could be dangerous, then they explain why they don't think that specific thing would happen. Then you have to change tack, and then they say, 'your story keeps changing'... "If you're building an AGI, it's like building a Saturn V rocket [but with every human on it]. It's a complex, difficult engineering task, and you're going to try and make it aligned, which means it's going to deliver people to the moon and home again. People ask “why assume they won't just land on the Moon and return home safely?" And I'm like, because you don't know what you're doing! If you try to send people to the moon and you don't know what you're doing, your astronauts will die. [Unlike the telephone, or electricity, where you can assume it’s probably going to work out okay] I contend that ASI is more like the moon rocket. "The moon is small compared with the rest of the sky, so you don't get to the moon by default - you hit some part of the sky that isn't the moon. So, show me the plan by which you predict to specifically hit the moon." And then people say, “how do you predict that [AIs] will want bad things?” There's more bad things than good things! It's not actually a complicated argument... I'm not going to predict specifically where it off into random space your astronauts are going, but you're not going to hit the moon unless you have a really good, technically clear plan for how you do it. And if you ask these people for their plan, they don't have one. What's Yann Lecun’s plan?” "I think that if you're building an enormously powerful technology and you have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen, this is bad. Like, this is default unsafe. If you've got something that's going to do enormously influential things in the world, and you don't know what enormously influential things it's going to do, this thing is unsafe until you can convince me that it's safe." HOST: “That’s a good way of thinking about it - with some technologies you can assume that the default will be good or at least neutral, or that the capacity of a person to use this in a very bad way is bounded somehow. There's just only so many people you could electrocute one by one."

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

77,378 просмотров • 3 лет назад

JUST IN: TRUMP EXPLAINS HOW THE U.S IS GOING TO EXTRACT ENRICHED URANIUM FROM IRAN "Somebody said, 'how are we going to get the nuclear dust? We're going to get it by going in with Iran, with lots of excavators because... obliteration!" "We need the biggest excavators you can imagine, but we're going to go in together with Iran. We're going to get it and we're going to take it back home to the US!"
0:27

JUST IN: TRUMP EXPLAINS HOW THE U.S IS GOING TO EXTRACT ENRICHED URANIUM FROM IRAN "Somebody said, 'how are we going to get the nuclear dust? We're going to get it by going in with Iran, with lots of excavators because... obliteration!" "We need the biggest excavators you can imagine, but we're going to go in together with Iran. We're going to get it and we're going to take it back home to the US!"

Sulaiman Ahmed

72,699 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад