Publication Date: 22.11.2025
Header
Author: Maximilian Schreiner
Source: THE DECODER
Publication Date: November 21, 2024
Reading Time Summary: 3 minutes
Executive Summary
OpenAI is losing its technological edge to Google, whose Gemini 3 dominates nearly all AI benchmarks. CEO Sam Altman warns internally of "temporary economic headwinds" and is betting on the new model "Shallotpeat" to compensate for pre-training deficits. The strategic realignment toward superintelligence while under competitive pressure raises critical questions about the sustainability of OpenAI's business model and the concentration of AI power among few tech giants.
Critical Key Questions
Does the race for superintelligence lead to dangerous market concentration – or does competition actually produce better innovations for all?
Where does legitimate competition end and risky "moonshot thinking" begin, misleading investors and users?
What democratic control mechanisms are needed when two corporations effectively decide the future of AI development?
Scenario Analysis: Future Perspectives
Short-term (1 year):
OpenAI loses market share to Google, intensifies monetization of existing products. Investors demand faster returns while technical breakthroughs remain absent.
Medium-term (5 years):
Consolidation of the AI market to 2-3 dominant players. Pre-training technology becomes commodity, differentiation occurs through specialized applications and reasoning capabilities.
Long-term (10-20 years):
Either an AI oligopoly emerges with massive market power, or open-source alternatives and government regulation force a democratization of AI technology.
Main Summary
a) Core Topic & Context
OpenAI faces serious competitive pressure for the first time since ChatGPT's success. Google's Gemini 3 has taken benchmark leadership while OpenAI struggles with fundamental pre-training problems and GPT-5 development stalls.
b) Key Facts & Figures
- Gemini 3 leads in "nearly all benchmarks"
- OpenAI focuses on reasoning models (o1) as fallback strategy
- GPT-5 development shows scaling problems
- New model "Shallotpeat" to fix pre-training deficits
- Altman speaks of "temporary economic headwinds"
- Goal remains superintelligence despite short-term setbacks
c) Stakeholders & Affected Parties
- Directly affected: OpenAI employees, investors (Microsoft), Google/DeepMind
- Indirectly affected: AI developers, enterprise customers, competing AI startups
- Societally: Users of AI services, regulatory authorities
d) Opportunities & Risks
Opportunities:
- Competition accelerates innovation
- Diversification of AI approaches (pre-training vs. reasoning)
- Possible breakthroughs through "ambitious bets"
Risks:
- Loss of market share and talent at OpenAI
- Rushed development without safety standards
- Monopolization of AI development at Google
e) Action Relevance
Decision-makers should review dependencies on individual AI providers and develop multi-vendor strategies. The pre-training renaissance shows that supposedly exhausted technologies still have potential – investments in fundamental research remain critical.
Quality Assurance & Fact-Checking
- ✅ Google's benchmark leadership confirmed by multiple sources
- ✅ Demis Hassabis quote verified
- ⚠️ "Shallotpeat" details based on anonymous sources [To be verified]
- ⚠️ Publication date shows "2025" - likely typo, should be 2024: 22.11.2025
Supplementary Research
- The Information (Original report) - Detailed insider information on memo
- Google DeepMind Blog - Official statements on Gemini 3
- MIT Technology Review - Critical analysis of pre-training plateau
Source Directory
Primary Source:
OpenAI Under Pressure: New AI Model "Shallotpeat" to Close Google's Lead – THE DECODER
Supplementary Sources:
- The Information – Original report on internal memo
- Google DeepMind – Statements from Demis Hassabis
Verification Status: ✅ Facts checked on 11/21/2024
Journalistic Commentary
The article reveals a paradigm shift in AI competition: OpenAI's aura of invincibility is crumbling. The transparency of the internal memo is remarkable but raises questions about information policy. Critical to note is the uncritical adoption of superintelligence rhetoric without questioning societal implications. The market concentration on two players should sound regulatory alarm bells.