ChatGPT now on chat.com
chat.com
chat.com
Is this some kind of marketing flex? "We are so recognizable, we can afford drop the only thing from our name that makes it make object level sense"?
Other examples: Transferwise -> Wise (despite them still doing transfers as their main business), WeWork -> We (ok, to be fair in my experience not so much work got done there at the best of times) etc.
These things also usually completely kill SEO. Like, how am I supposed to google for the nearest coworking space? "we near me" sounds ridiculous to type into a search engine.
However, chat.com is blocked on my work computer as pornography.
This feels a lot like Twitter -> X, I guess we have to get used to this.
who calls alphabet alphabet? meta ended up slightly better only because they had three or four really strong consumer brands.
Not the same as Alphabet is the parent company and media do call it so when the parent company is fined for example. Same for Meta. Also, the press does write "X" or "X (formerly Twitter").
There must something about companies wanting their customers think that they don't need to use the competition.
There was HBO Go and HBO Now, one of which you could subscribe to yourself, the other of which was an option you could get through your cable provider. There was massive amounts of confusion about the entire situation.
HBO Max was combining the two apps into a single digital streaming platform.
If OpenAI renamed itself to just "AI" I'd sigh and shrug (and applaud the honesty), but ChatGPT is a product and well-known brand name.
But I don’t think that’s the case, at least not artificially. These sites tend to rise naturally in search rankings because they have a huge volume of links and media coverage. Which still makes SEO efforts unnecessary.
Me: I will ask ChatGpt… changed to “I will ask Chat”
So Mom: Who is Chat? Me: Gpt.
They could buy Chad.com as well, then it would make sense /s
- Chat, is this real?
- GPT, Being intentionally obtuse: Nah dude, chill
Examples of what my coworkers and I say at the office:
"What does chat have to say about x?"
"Did you ask chat"
"Did chat find the answer?"
"Yeah, chat scripted that one."It's for sure something I say...
So when you ask chat a question you are in reality asking an algorithmic simulation of mass internet communication.
In my mind the connection works, which is convenient with the new chat.com domain and all...
Someone who has't been visiting the site for a while will be very disappointed, ChatGPT does only text, voice and images
- Its name is unpronounceable for 90% of its users (we short it to ”zap”)
- The word itself has unfamiliar letter combinations (“wh” and “pp”).
- The intended pun doesn’t work at all, since no one here uses “What’s up” (not even the 10% that understands English)
Similar to what happens with “Google” and “Facebook”, btw.
"App" does not rhyme with "Up".
It does if you're from Boston.
Well until you wrote this I never realized it was supposed to be a pun, and I'm a native English speaker...
An initialism is not exactly an amazing name for a consumer product.
Soft G in GPT as in Generative (which is what it stands for)... Simple.
You might get away with "Gippity" in some contexts.
It wouldn't surprise me if they eventually rebrand ChatGPT to just Chat, Justin-Timberlake-style.
"This AI is dumb. Bob, did you get all this research from a fake ChatGPT cos you're too cheap to buy the real thing?"
If the intention is to rebrand as Chat.com / Chat, the interesting question is whether this commits them to the chatbot-based model of using AI tools. Personally, I think that is something of a mistake – the chat model is fine for now, but it requires too much pre-knowledge to use effectively. The most effective AI tools I've used have more elaborate UIs that help "corral" the created material into more usable formats.
"What does the SEC do?"
"Securities market stuff? I'm not sure, you should ask gippity"
I didn’t like ChatGPT as a product name and I still don’t but it’s established,recognized,distinctive and SEO friendly.
Why would you trade all that fir something else?
I imagine that without a professional negotiator in the process many domain owners would easily leave lots of money on the table.
That can't have been cheap.
Though it looks like they were already trying to sell the domain: https://web.archive.org/web/20221208222423/https://www.chat....
Historically, it was owned by CNet's download.com (remember that?) and it redirected to their chat apps category.
Copy & paste for those who can't visit Twitter:
> BREAKING NEWS: Secret acquirer of $15+ million domain chat .com revealed and it's exactly who you'd think.
> For those of you that have been following me for a while, you may recall that I announced earlier this year that I had acquired the domain chat .com for an "8 figure sum" (which was later reported as being $15.5M).
> I also shared that I had sold the domain to an undisclosed buyer.
> I was not at liberty to share who the acquirer was (I was going to leave that to them, when they were ready).
> Well, in a 8 character tweet (talk about brevity), Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI revealed that they were the buyer. If you visit the website now, it goes to ChatGPT.
Called it a couple weeks ago → https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41884821.
Some still think "OpenAI has no moat", keep on beating that horse, lol.
It’s the same for all foundation model companies. The moat is how much money that have to sell inference and pay for training.
The proof of that is chatgpt itself. OpenAI did not pioneer a lot of those kinds of features. They saw startups doing it and just did it themselves since it’s fairly straightforward to implement.
A scrappy startup can copy the vast majority of chatgpt features with another foundation model.
Custom GPTs are just prompts.
Software is expensive to build, adoption is more expensive. If you ever try to convince someone to migrate in a B2B setting - you'll learn that its not enough to be cheaper, or better - you need to either be 10x cheaper or provide a next level experience that makes the existing product seem like a liability.
If you could copy ChatGPT's functionality (getting more expensive by the day), and offer it for $2/month - then folks might migrate. Otherwise the switching cost is too high for most.
You can. You can also make the core functionality of Twitter in a weekend.
Building software at this high a level isn’t too expensive or difficult, especially since the LLM provider you’d use handles the most difficult scaling issues for you.
> and offer it for $2/month
This you can’t really do. OpenAI can’t either tbf, they just have the runway to charge whatever they feel like… that cash is their moat.
Not for foundation models, and not when considered individually. But as long as OpenAI continues killing it with foundation models, continues moving up the stack with applications built on those models, and continues establishing market-leading parterships/integrations with companies like Microsoft and Apple, that's a moat.
True moats often involve factors like network effects, brand strength, intellectual property, or significant operational efficiencies that are harder to replicate.
"The combination of OpenAI’s advancements in foundation models, application development, and strategic partnerships collectively creates a robust moat for several reasons: [list of reasons]
"Together, these elements form a substantial moat. OpenAI’s cutting-edge models create a technological barrier, its applications generate a sticky user base, and its partnerships expand its influence and operational support, making it difficult for competitors to replicate its entire ecosystem. This combination of technological, user-based, and strategic advantages creates a robust, multi-layered moat around OpenAI in the competitive AI landscape."
I can upload CSV, JSON, PDF, any type of text file...
That's a UX implementation, not a moat. There's nothing ChatGPT-specific about vector stores/the Assistants API that Claude can't copy if there's enough demand.
They'll be out of business very soon!
/s
You can stay in business for a long time with no moat and billions of dollars.
Long enough to find a moat even.
I wonder whether running an ad on a ChatGPT conversation even pays for the cost of that conversation. I know the agent my company runs costs us 10x more to generate each response than an ad click would bring us in revenue. So, even if someone clicked on an ad every time they asked a question, we'd still lose money. Hmm.
Either way it’s a bold move. It’s clearly easier to type and say. I wonder if they found GPT is just too unpleasant to say so trying to switch the brand is worth it to them.
ChatGPT now on chat.com
I think a more accurate title may be:
chat.com now redirects to chatgpt.com
Haven't they already have the "Xerox" brand/verb of LLM Chat bots?
Based on the reaction, the co had other plans for it and now backpedaling ("it's just a redirect!")
I feel it's not the same.
(context: https://the-decoder.com/goldman-sachs-blunder-adds-to-ai-sto...)