At the altar of AI capex, Google is sacrificing the golden goose

twitter.com

3 points·wyclif··7 comments

I tried following the logic in that writeup, but it seems like an incoherent rant. What is the author's point and what is their reasoning?

The auction used to be automated. I could say my max spend is $30 an ad, but if my biggest competitor maxed at $15, I would pay ~$15 + 1. Now I pay $30

Also made more simply, if I made XBOX games, Google used to say “you can pick ‘Xbox’ as a target and they’d only show your ads to people who searched for Xbox. Not they generalize and show to all “video game” searches like PlayStation.

What does any of that have to do with AI capex spending?

I think they’re theorizing that’s why they’re squeezing their customers.

He's asking hypothetically why Google would be willing to give up a healthy, lucrative business to Doctorow-ize their gravy train.

One of the things that I think makes “AI bubble popping” so hard to argue I think is an asymmetry in perceived downside.

On the one hand you can look at Google and think to yourself self, “Google will be fine, they have a healthy business, even if AI doesn’t work out they’ll continue to make tens of billions”. The DEI will make 100s of millions.

So I think you look at CEOs and investors and think “the rational thing is to protect that business”

But I don’t think insiders see it that way. No one in Silicon Valley wants to be the CEO of Kellog’s. The loss of status of longer inventing the future and losing your stock multiple might as well be existential.

An advertiser crying about advertising.

BOO THIS MAN!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com