Amazon and Apple are a bit different, but Nvidia and Microsoft are purely seen as 'AI' play (MSFT through Open AI) as far as I know. Google indirectly profits from that too.
Nvidia's rise is much more directly tied to this.
> [...], but it's not at all clear that their lead is going to stick long enough to turn it into anything
People are saying that since January, but here we are in July and GPT-4 is still the best model. While everybody is catching up, they have (1) the processes in place to come up with new ideas and get them working (2) a head-start of many months (note that GPT-4 was basically done in Sep 2022).
Six months is... not a long time. Nobody knows where this is going to be in a year, or two, or five.
Certainly true, but their stock price is goosed by their hype, which is "AI AI AI!!!"
By historical standards, current P/E ratios are extremely high - especially for companies of this size.
And Google's rally corresponded to their very successful set of announcements in the AI space at Google IO (and also a profit expectation beat to be fair).
Yep. Like a neural network powered search engine, right?
> In zero interest rates you can instead make investor hype your product so they increase the share price, but it doesn't work forever.
As this article points out, investors believe.
They've already got that - it's those text snippets. They're quite unreliable, so a reliable one would be different of course.
But Google doesn't get paid to provide search results, they get paid to show ads you click on. It doesn't seem to me this is the same product as AI that shows you text summaries of search results.
Worse, if you mine all the content out of search results instead of making users click on them, why will people even make new webpages for you to show in the results?
I actually meant the neural ranking of results, and the selection of ads for result sets.