Post New

WendyBG has been commenting on the increasing amount of debt (much of which hidden due to accounting methods used) starting to be assumed by the obvious companies who ware funding various AI efforts. Her concern is that this debt may be the catalyst which foments the next stock market crash. Plausible, but that's not the point of this post.

Like many of you, I'm old enough to remember the fallout in the personal computer venders during that revolutionary technology shift. For every winner, there were dozens (hundreds?) of firms which dropped during the 1980's into the distant fogs of memory. The same thing happened again, between 2000 and 2002 when, networking/internet first became the apple of investor's eyes and then crashed with the vast majority of the firms tied to that wonderful (truly) opportunity who crashed and burned.

The companies who pick the right AI horse stand to make an enormous amount of money someday. In the meantime, their profitability will be zip as their cash (and borrowings) are poured into AI ventures. The ones who back the losing horses, will have not generated real returns to their stockholders for years and possibly risked pissing away the whole shebang.

It just struck me that Nvidia, like Taiwan Semiconductor, are selling to the guys doing the build-out. That means that they are on the side of the equation receiving some of the money the others are spending. While the software guys are going into hock, but unless the chip manufactures are drinking the Kool-Ade and pouring their profits into the same pit, they stand to benefit regardless of who wins. Their major risks (excluding future competition from China and elsewhere) is, after the crash, receivable issues with bankrupted companies and competing against "discovered" overstock of their chips being liquidated by others.

Other winners (with the same potential receivables risk) will be the firms supplying the goods and services required to build the required data centers as well as electrical utilities which can back-charge their distributed customer base to finance the larger capacity required by the electrical grid. (The alternative being plant-scaled nuclear power plants attached to those data centers.

Looking into the clouded crystal ball, until/unless AI becomes socialized, the changes it will make in the economic structure of our population could be cataclysmic. Cutting through self-delusional nonsense, similar to the fact that few children today can perform simple math procedures without a calculator, the critical thinking that traditional educational methods have fostered for a very long time, children using AI to "assist" them with their schooling will have a very different set of personal capabilities, (excluding their AI "assistant") than could be taken for granted in the past.

I find myself wishing for AI while I listen to on-hold music and the encouragement of "your call is important to us" for 20 minutes and then being told that a supervisor will call be back sometime over the next 5-7 business day. I find myself wishing for a car that takes me where I want to go without my intervention. I want a robot that will do household chores, an automatic chef, pick the most efficacious air flights, a way to do hundreds of tasks - large and small - that others provide for me today. Each of those will cost "someone" their job. Sure building more AI capacity will require humans, but I suspect the tradeoff will be losses of jobs of professionals such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, CPA, etc. In short, our society post-AI revolution could be significantly different (as I sit here typing on a PC attached to a network, while chatting on my mobile phone with a wristwatch attached - all of which were science fiction topics in my youth).

As the late, great, Yogi Berra once (purportedly) said "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

Jeff

>> For every winner, there were dozens (hundreds?) of firms which dropped during the 1980's into the distant fogs of memory. The same thing happened again, between 2000 and 2002 when, networking/internet first became the apple of investor's eyes and then crashed with the vast majority of the firms tied to that wonderful (truly) opportunity who crashed and burned. <<

Worse: Even the winners can be a catastrophic loss for investors who pick them at the height of a Mania. Have a look at Cisco, leading in it's field (networking) then, leading today: $80 then, $80 today.

“There were two thousand automobile companies: probably the most important invention of the first half of the 20th century. It had a huge impact on people. If you had seen at the time of the first cars how this country would develop in relation to cars, you would have said: 'This is the place to be!' But of the two thousand companies, from just a few years ago, only three automobile companies survived. And at one time or another, all three were selling for less than their book value.”

—WEB,1999. He makes the same case for airlines. Recognizing the importance of a developing industry is easy, finding the winners is much harder.

"WendyBG has been commenting on the increasing amount of debt (much of which hidden due to accounting methods used) starting to be assumed by the obvious companies who ware funding various AI efforts. Her concern is that this debt may be the catalyst which foments the next stock market crash."

I'd be more worried about crypto and all of its derivatives.

I'd be more worried about crypto and all of its derivatives.

I worry about both. That way my bases are covered.

But of the two thousand companies, from just a few years ago, only three automobile companies survived.

Just to be a jerk I’ll point out that the number of survivors was more like a dozen, maybe 20, at least for long enough to interest investors. GM was an amalgam of several different companies: Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile. Even Hummer started out as an independent brand and was bought out by GM early in its (Hummer’s) trajectory. If you owned Buick you did’t get wiped out, you just got GM shares instead.

Chrysler, of course, was Plymouth and Dodge. Ford stood solo, at least until it started farting around with Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover. (That’s 13, so far). Yeah, they had Mercury and a couple other badges, but those were just nameplates, not separate companies.

Nobody thinks about Checkers, but they had a bazillion taxicabs on the streets, didn’t they?

And then there was American Motors, with Nash, Hudson, the little known Metropolitan, and even Jeep. Who can forget Studebaker or Packard? Stutz, of Bearcat fame lasted 30 years, a decent run for an industrial firm, and had a second life of another 20 years later in the century. And hey! Duesenberg! It’s a doozy!

If you want to include car companies you could invest in but who were not Native American, you could list Peugeot, Volkswagen, Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, Renault, Fiat, Toyota, Honda, Land Rover, Saab and many others, some unknown in the US but who had a decent run in their own countries.

Three? Don’t be silly. There were a fair number of survivors, at least for a while. If we’re going to say “who survived for a century”, well, we should do that same for things like Dairy Queen, See’s, and everything else. Pretty tall hurdle, I would think.

(Oh, that’s 33, for the record, which is likely incomplete. You’re welcome.)

<<But of the two thousand companies, from just a few years ago, only three automobile companies survived.

Just to be a jerk I’ll point out that the number of survivors was more like a dozen, maybe 20, at least for long enough to interest investors. GM was an amalgam of several different companies: Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile. Even Hummer started out as an independent brand and was bought out by GM early in its (Hummer’s) trajectory. If you owned Buick you did’t get wiped out, you just got GM shares instead.>>

I live in suburban Detroit and I thought I would share an interesting story with the board but first bear with me
while I first provide some background information. Although much younger than me Tony Fadell went to the same High School
that I attended. Tony in his youth was a caddy at the Country Club of Detroit which was/is filled with major auto executives.
Tony went on to graduate from the University of Michigan and ultimately became a senior executive at Apple. He is considered
the Father of the I-Pod and Co-creator of the I-Phone. Before there was an I-Phone there was the I-Pod which was a huge
success but to quote from the recent excellent book Apple in China by Patrick McGee "Tony Fadell could hear the footsteps
behind him ...in a Silicon Valley culture captured by book titles such as Only the Paranoid Survive, Fadell began to worry
sustainability of these [I Pod] sales. 'You hear these heavy, stomping footsteps of the mobile phone industry... they are
adding cameras, they are adding color displays. And they are seeing the success of the iPod and going, that's just music.
We can load music onto our phone and do what the ipod does, plus more!"

Fast forward to the really interesting part of the story from the vantage point of someone like myself who grew up
in the Motor City, Tony talks about how he would go for long walks with Steve Jobs and talk about if Apple made a car
this is what it should look like and it should have these features. So here is a guy who had I guess you could say a subservient
position as a caddy in his youth at a major Country Club in Detroit filled with major auto executives and he is talking
with one of the major innovators of the last Century about destroying the auto industry. As Don King would say "only
in America."

Tony eventually left Apple and was building a second home in Lake Tahoe (there are no inexpensive homes in Lake Tahoe)
and didn't like the thermostats available at the local hardware store. Long story short he invents his own and creates
Nest which he sells to Google for $3.2 Billion Cash.

“I'd be more worried about crypto and all of its derivatives.“

As a huuuge fan of ‘The Big Short’ movie, I would be appreciative if you might explain this?

Thx.

m

“I'd be more worried about crypto and all of its derivatives.“

As a huuuge fan of ‘The Big Short’ movie, I would be appreciative if you might explain this?"
----
No particularly great insights. I don't own crypto. Have never really understood it.

We know what Warren and Charlie think/thought of bitcoin. Charlie called it "rat poison squared, a venereal disease, etc.."

Bitcoin's price has dropped ~21% in the last month. Wondering if we are starting to see a serious unwind?

I've been playing with various LLMs asking about building risks in the crypto world. Different AI versions predict surprisingly high probabilities of a crypto collapse. Getting educated on some of the inner workings of the crypto world. Still loads I don't know/understand.

Didn't realize investors are apparently able to take leveraged bets — executed through derivatives like perpetual futures, options, and margin trading on platforms such as Binance, Bybit, or Deribit— allowing them to amplify exposure to Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and altcoins using borrowed funds. Leverage ratios apparently can reach 10x to 125x. A "measly" $1,000 position can control $10,000–$125,000 in assets. Munger spinning in his grave.😬

Buffett: "“I think every time you buy a nonproductive asset, you’re counting on somebody else, later on, to buy a nonproductive asset, because they think they can sell to somebody for more money,” Buffett said. “It does come to a bad ending.”

Speaking of bad endings, what happens when you leverage up that non-productive asset 125x ...and then the price of the asset starts falling? What are the knock-on effects? AI tells me the combined "value" (note my parentheses) of the crypto ecosystem is well over $3 Trillion.

We had some interesting equity price action today with NVDA reporting blowout earnings yesterday potentially dispelling the "AI bubble" thesis. And yet the Mag 7 and NVDA were all down. Strange action. Early collateral damage?

Bitcoin's price chart is highly correlated to NVDA's & TSLA's 2025 stock. Correlation to other MAG 7 names is lower but still correlated.

Might be nice to have $340 billion or so on hand in case of a downturn?

What do I know?

It does look toppy, when and if anything will happen knowbody knows, if they get timing right it's by luck.

I've given up listening to Dallio and Marks as they often change their opinions from one interview to the next and are often wrong (from my study of them the last 5 years) they often say something and later adjust the timeframe/ water it down or just get it completely wrong eg saying they're in China then theyre not. I think as long as they're getting coverage and everyone's talking about their opinions, that's their modus operandi and it's good for business.

Personally, im out of Alphabet it's run up since. Thats fine. I think about investment on a sliding scale, future returns are a lot lower. Now I'm more in retail, apparel, pizzas and student accommodation. A year ago I'd never have thought that but here I am. Driven by valuation and possible returns going forward with a 3 year view. Rinse and repeat.

Likewise, I went to the British Motor Museum recently and they have a fantastic timeline sketched out on a big wall of all the British motor companies from early 20thc to present and how/when they started, ceased, merged or were taken over. Some had fascinating beginnings too. Eg one started as a bicycle manufacturer for example before getting into cars. Worth a visit!

https://www.britishmotormuseum.co.uk/explore/museu...

Linked.

Their major risks (excluding future competition from China and elsewhere) is, after the crash, receivable issues with bankrupted companies and competing against "discovered" overstock of their chips being liquidated by others.

I think that by far their biggest risk is simply competition. Their clients are gigantic: several have the means, opportunity, and motive to invent their own substitutes and get TMSC to fabricate them so that they can capture the billions in profit that Nvidia is making on their purchases. The software ecosystem is a nice barrier to entry, but far from insurmountable for the tech giants. So I don't think they have a barrier to competitive entry, just a very high cost of competitive entry, in both money and elapsed time. Anyone meeting that cost could drive their returns (measured as a percent of that cost) down to the typical return on capital.

The only unusual situation here is that such a new competitive entrant might be captive, and pull away only the business from their owner. In other words, if (say) Microsoft or whoever designs their own chips for their next generation data centres, they might not sell those chips to the other clients of Nvidia. That outcome would considerably reduce the risk to Nvidia's future profits.

Jim

"In other words, if (say) Microsoft or whoever designs their own chips for their next generation data centres, they might not sell those chips to the other clients of Nvidia. That outcome would considerably reduce the risk to Nvidia's future profits."

Google's TPUs are an under appreciated asset in the cloud / AI wars. Gemini 3 was trained completely trained on TPUs


https://cloud.google.com/transform/ai-specialized-...

Jim's last sentence is a dramatic philosophical question for a business. It borders on the question of whether, say Microsoft, is a hardware company or a software company (similar arguments could be made for any of the players). Whether a product is more profitable if kept proprietary, fostered, by direct manufacturing relationships, keeping the profits in-house or by licensing to make it an industry standard.

These decisions are non-trivial. Xerox is the poster child of getting it wrong when they didn't exploit the developments at PAEC because they felt they felt they were protecting their photocopy business. Kodak, similarly, lagged when it came to digital photography to protect their film business.

On the other hand, IBM took a stab at developing a PC and found the tail was somewhat wagging the dog for a while.

But being THE industry standard or one of two has benefitted Google (Chromium and Android), Apple, Microsoft and numerous industry-wide standards covered by DIN, NEMA and so on (long list of alphabet soup here).

So, we now have a single ecosystem built around software designed to run on Nvidia chips. And every car company working on autonomous cars is selecting from a large number of software choices. In the first case, there is an argument for forming an open industry standard which will both increase competition between chip designers (I am assuming, given a reasonable time frame, if this is not created in the US, China will provide an alternative) as well as vastly reduce costs. In the case of autonomous cars, the use of standards (such as transponders on parking signs, fire hydrants, built into traffic signals, rail crossing etc., etc. as well into each car, which are readable by car-borne receivers will promote efficacy and safety. That requires standards. It would also allow municipalities to assist/command load balancing. As with GPS and electric windows, at some point, the control software becomes as common in cars as radios - and at some point will likely be mandated as being safer than manual control compared to cars attached to a municipal traffic control system.

As it stands now, there are a plethora of AI's which all funnel down to a common hardware/software architecture. My guess is, as the number of primary contenders narrows, the physical platforms they run on will become more divers.

Jeff

” As it stands now, there are a plethora of AI's which all funnel down to a common hardware/software architecture. My guess is, as the number of primary contenders narrows, the physical platforms they run on will become more divers.”

The connections and interoperation of these systems is interesting as well. Who owns those? Who will provide the next Bluetooth, http, wi-fi, etc.? Will it all be wireless using satellites?

abromber

In the case of autonomous cars, the use of standards (such as transponders on parking signs, fire hydrants, built into traffic signals, rail crossing etc., etc. as well into each car, which are readable by car-borne receivers will promote efficacy and safety. That requires standards. It would also allow municipalities to assist/command load balancing.

Whatchutalkinabout? Putting sensors or transponders in roads and intersections to control autonomous vehicles is an antiquated (what, twenty years old?) idea. The infrastructure cost would be prohibitive, and it would never address the jaywalking pedestrian or stray cat. All the sensors and smarts are in the cars themselves without any outside assistance. That’s the way it’s gone so far and will go for the foreseeable future.

Putting sensors or transponders in roads and intersections to control autonomous vehicles is an antiquated (what, twenty years old?) idea. The infrastructure cost would be prohibitive...

Yes, but on the other hand the current approach of self training and largely ignoring edge cases hasn't yet turned out to work well enough. Emphasis on "yet", OK, but I wouldn't be quite so dismissive. Sticking the equivalent of 5 cent RFID tags on curbs every so many metres wouldn't cost a trillion dollars.

<CYNICISM>
Besides, there is probably no need to figure out which general approach will work best. In the end the decision on whether to let current generation cars loose will be primarily political, and perhaps insurance-related, not based primarily on the technical or third-party safety concerns. Get used to looking both ways twice when crossing the street till the cars at least manage the concept of (say) object permanence : )
</CYNICISM>

Jim

In the case of autonomous cars, the use of standards (such as transponders on parking signs, fire hydrants, built into traffic signals, rail crossing etc., etc. as well into each car, which are readable by car-borne receivers will promote efficacy and safety. That requires standards. It would also allow municipalities to assist/command load balancing.

In addition to what Elan said ...

You think the municipalities that can't/don't even fix potholes to install & maintain these transponders?

Get used to looking both ways twice when crossing the street till the cars at least manage the concept of (say) object permanence : )

Sixty-six years ago:

"Economic corpuscles in an artery of Man, the behemoths charged heedlessly past
the two monks who dodged them from lane to lane. To be
felled by one of them was to be run over by truck after
truck until a safety cruiser found the flattened imprint of a
man on the pavement and stopped to clean it up."

- A Canticle for Leibowitz Walter M Miller Jr, 1959

-- sutton
always really liked that book

Yes, but on the other hand the current approach of self training and largely ignoring edge cases hasn't yet turned out to work well enough. Emphasis on "yet", OK, but I wouldn't be quite so dismissive. Sticking the equivalent of 5 cent RFID tags on curbs every so many metres wouldn't cost a trillion dollars.

It’s a waste of time and money, unless you embed a tag in every human and dog.
And keep in mind that it probably costs $50 to install each of those 5 cent tags. And what do you do if a car has a tag, but then it double parks and leaves the driver’s door open?

The infrastructure cost would be prohibitive
______________________________________

If you visit Japan, you'll find that, whether in a big city or the tiniest town, every sidewalk has a row of textured tiles running down the center with a different texture leading to each building entrance and, changing yet again at each intersection. All this expense and effort was taken country-wide to assist the blind when they take walks.

Cars equipped with sensors are smart enough, even today, especially with the assistance of a good GPS to recognize the boundaries and intersections of roads. Tagging stop signs (possibly with unique QR codes) and broadcasting (wi-fi?) the color of traffic lights is easy enough. The challenge will be how to find a legal parking space. As an alternative to tagging of fire hydrants, parking signs, driveways and so on, the same method used to locate permanent speed traps on sophisticated GPS apps (like Waze and Sygic) could be used to incorporate them into the software's database.

At some point, if society buys in to the concept of autonomous vehicles, rather than the car bobbing and weaving in competition with others, the traffic of a city or highway could be considered a system and routing conducted by a centralized system where AI would optimize the flow of traffic to reduce average travel time and optimize fuel/battery efficiency.

Can this be done today? Nope. But it would be easier than creating the internet was.

Jeff

"Bitcoin's price has dropped ~21% in the last month. Wondering if we are starting to see a serious unwind?"

WSJ front page this morning...

"Year of Crypto Comes Crashing Down

Bitcoin on track for its worst monthly result since ‘crypto winter’ hit in 2022

BY KEVIN T. DUGAN AND VICKY GE HUANG

Turmoil in the crypto market intensified this week as bitcoin shed more than 10%, adding to a meltdown that has erased $1 trillion in value from digital currencies more broadly since October.

In the 24 hours leading up to Friday morning, more than $2 billion worth of leveraged crypto trades were liquidated, pushing bitcoin below $81,000 before it recovered somewhat, according to CoinGlass. The largest cryptocurrency is on track for its worst monthly performance since June 2022, when the collapse of crypto lender Celsius Network plunged the market into what became known as its crypto winter.

Some traders have said the drop in bitcoin might be forcing some other selling in the traditional markets. Stocks rose Friday to cap a volatile week in which the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite all fell 1.9% or more.

“Every group chat I’m in, everyone wants to know who blew up,” said Nic Carter, founding partner at Castle Island Ventures. “You can’t make sense of it all now. There’s a general malaise with no exact catalyst to say this is why.”

https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/it-was-supp...

It’s a waste of time and money, unless you embed a tag in every human and dog.

Through my day job I spend a fair amount of time working with others that have brought , and continue to bring, semi-autonomous machines to market. What I think everyone is describing is the truly amazing ability the human being has to sense and react to its surroundings in a highly effective manner. Beacons, consistent lines, buried cables, detailed maps, satellite positioning... are all tools that make an "autonomous" machine semi-capable, but they still haven't achieved the same level as our meat computer with stereoscopic vision in all scenarios.

Anything operating in a real world environment has to be infinitely better than the Roomba bumping around the house or even the dog bouncing off its invisible fence barrier in the yard. The people I talk with like to say the machine needs to have a goal, constantly sense the environment, constantly plan/replan based on the sensing to achieve the goal, act on the current plan, and CONSTANTLY VALIDATE THE OUTCOME to give feedback to the plan in order to achieve the goal. Or even CHANGE the goal. For an old controls engineer like myself (another brief lifetime) it sounds like the most complicated PLC logic and PID loops i can imagine to enact the desired outcomes through a machine.

One may think that something as "simple" as a Waymo vehicle only has a goal to get a rider from point A to B as its outcome. But that's not necessarily the case. What if the rider has a medical emergency in the vehicle and needs to be taken to a hospital? What if an object from the road is trapped under the vehicle and damaging the road? What if a person is approaching the vehicle violently? What if the vehicle has cargo on the roof or truck bed and the cargo is falling out on the road? True autonomy would require the ability to sense all of these needs and react accordingly which may not be just pulling over to the side of road and calling for help. The real world is utterly chaotic at all times and when you have an infinite number of edge case .01% likelihood events, you end up encountering "edge case" at high enough frequency that "autonomy" tends to break down. When you think about the sensing needed to address the above examples, and an infinite number of other scenarios, you can begin to understand why the capabilities need to be resident within the vehicle and why any artificial indicators in the outside world would likely become redundant.

There may be a separate discussion regarding the current state of technology and a potential interim step with artificial outside world indicators due to current technological limitations and safety concerns. I'm not deep enough into it to comment. I will say I'm not sold on Elon's stance that LiDAR is not needed. I may be able to navigate the world just fine without it with my human vision capability, but it seems like there are use cases where it could come in handy in my day to day life. Having been in the manufacturing world for well over two decades, I suspect the downplaying of LiDAR could simply be that the form factor and cost are prohibitive for commercialization. I have no data to back that up other than having seen many features shelved for years until they can be fit into machine forms and profitable.

Jeff

I think a lot of what we are seeing is a function of WHY people buy Bitcoin. While Ethereum is a decentralized blockchain with smart contract functionality and therefore potentially offers financial institutions a method to move money more efficiently than using the legacy methodology, Bitcoin is not as well suited to this process.

So, why buy Bitcoin?

1) You're a geek who thinks it's the coolest thing since sliced bread

2) You are a (fill in the blank with someone who wants to hide ill-gotten gains) who wants to store cash and move it across borders in a medium which is not trackable by (fill in a name) government.

3) You are a (fill in the blank with someone who wants to hide ill-gotten gains) who wants to store cash and hide it from tax collectors in a medium which is not trackable by (fill in a name) government.

4) You feel this diversifies your asset holdings

5) You think you can sell it at a profit at a later date.

Number 1 makes a great deal of sense - unless it's costing you a 100 grand to play. Numbers 2 and 3 are counterproductive to society and tax payers. Number 4 might be a reasonable argument if you made allowance for the risk. I'm guessing Las Vegas might give you better odds than number five in the long term.

Jeff
(Disclosure: I own zero crypto currency for the same reason I've only bought one lottery ticket in my life. I think I bought it in the 1970's. I gave them a chance to let me win - and they blew it. I make it a point not to invest in anything I can't explain to my wife)

Anything operating in a real world environment has to be infinitely better than the Roomba bumping around the house

I can't speak to robotaxis, which I intend to avoid for as long as possible - but modern low-end robovacs, like my Xiaomi S20+ "Xiulan", are much cleverer than the original Roomba algorithm and deal pretty well with alterations in their environment - avoid and return later, etc. Also much more powerful drive systems and able to leap over obstacles that blocked earlier models. Though I suspect mine would not deal with with being off-net since starting it requires an app for anything except the most basic modes, which is annoying.

A far cry from avoiding children running into traffic, true.

Don’t forget the Yugo

...like my Xiaomi S20+ "Xiulan", are ....... able to leap over obstacles that blocked earlier models.

Good to know. So I have to keep my good old Neato in good shape, as I simply can block him from going into a corner where cables lay in which he would be entangled, and coming too close to a window with a net of long fly protection threads hanging down to the floor which he would try to suck in, by simply laying my yoga mat in front of them :)

To make my last post understandable for non-Yoga people: Of course I mean my rolled up yoga mat, not it laying flat :)

So I have to keep my good old Neato in good shape, as I simply can block him from going into a corner where cables lay in which he would be entangled, and coming too close to a window with a net of long fly protection threads hanging down to the floor

The robovac app also lets you designate floor areas to be avoided, which works well for keeping Xiulan out of the corner where the cats are fed. But one of the upsides to migrating to Portugal is that I have far less stuff now, so moving two chairs and a lamp leaves the floor almost completely clear for the vacuum.

I also updated my high level valuation model on Alphabet and came out at an intrinsic value of $230

$10eps ttm 9%pa growth for 3 years, terminal 25x $323, desired 12% return = $230 now.

This is also worth a watch.

Creative financing explanation and associated bubble.

https://youtu.be/aUMMtbc6Aog?si=zz0o15dYCQPD3tUE

Dude. AI has made Google search obsolete. The ability to remember context is really valuable. I know Google search offers the Gemini AI summary but what I am talking about is ChatGPT and other AI apps that don't touch Google at all. Google is done and gone like Lycos and AltaVista.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.