[alsodumb]

My theory as to why all the bigtech companies are investing so much money in video generation models is simple: they are trying to eliminate the threat of influencers/content creators to their ad revenue.

Think about it, almost everyone I know rarely clicks on ads or buys from ads anymore. On the other hand, a lot of people including myself look into buying something advertised implicitly or explicitly by content creators we follow. Say a router recommended by LinusTechTips. A lot of brands started moving their as spending to influencers too.

Google doesn't have a lot of control on these influencers. But if they can get good video generations models, they can control this ad space too without having human in the loop.

[spankalee]

It's so much simpler than that:

1) AI is a massive wave right now and everyone's afraid that they're going to miss it, and that it will change the world. They're not obviously wrong!

2) AI is showing real results in some places. Maybe a lot of us are numb to what gen AI can do by now, but the fact that it can generate the videos in this post is actually astounding! 10 years ago it would have been borderline unbelievable. Of course they want to keep investing in that.

[summerlight]

> Think about it, almost everyone I know rarely clicks on ads or buys from ads anymore.

This is a typical tech echo chamber. There is a significant number of people who make direct purchases through ads.

> But if they can get good video generations models, they can control this ad space too without having human in the loop.

Looks like based on a misguided assumption. Format might have significant impacts on reach, but decision factor is trust on the reviewer. Video format itself does not guarantee a decent CTR/CVR. It's true that those ads company find this space lucrative, but they're smart enough to acknowledge this complexity.

[the8thbit]

> This is a typical tech echo chamber. There is a significant number of people who make direct purchases through ads.

Even if its not, TV ads, newspaper ads, magazine ads, billboards, etc... get exactly 0 clickthrus, and yet, people still bought (and continue to buy) them. Why do we act like impressions are hunky-dory for every other medium, but worthless for web ads?

[PittleyDunkin]

> Think about it, almost everyone I know rarely clicks on ads or buys from ads anymore.

I remember saying this to a google VP fifteen years ago. Somehow people are still clicking on ads today.

[wruza]

Sometimes it feels like we could solve most of the world’s problems by simply finding all those people and giving them a good talk. Cause I know that even stupid ads may work, on you, on me, on someone else, simply by mentioning brand existence. But clicking on ads equals to signing your own stupidity in my book. It must be not more than a few per thousand. Maybe the world is so big that even 0.1% is enough?

[vinayuck]

I did not think about that angle yet but I have to admit, I agree. I rarely ever even pay attention to the YT ads and kind of just zone out but the recommendations by content creators I usually watch are one of the main sources I keep up with new products and decide what to buy.

[dragonwriter]

> Think about it, almost everyone I know rarely clicks on ads or buys from ads anymore.

Most people have claimed not to be influenced by ads since long before networked computers were a major medium for delivering them.

[chefandy]

Nah. They're trying to eliminate the threat of content creators, artists, designers, animators, etc getting paid for their art and hard won skill instead of google.