1. Did Microsoft release the predicted product? – Yes

• On February 7, 2023, Microsoft unveiled the “new Bing” and a revamped Edge browser that integrated an OpenAI GPT‑4–based chatbot directly into Bing search, offering a ChatGPT‑like conversational experience alongside traditional search results. (techcrunch.com)
• This chat experience (initially Bing Chat, now Microsoft Copilot) is explicitly described as a built‑in feature of Microsoft Bing and Edge, powered by OpenAI’s GPT‑4/5 models. (en.wikipedia.org)

On the narrow question of “Will Microsoft release a search engine with OpenAI that offers ChatGPT‑like capabilities?” the prediction clearly came true in early 2023.

2. Did it have a “significant impact” / “materially erode or threaten” Google’s core search business? – Evidence cuts both ways

Market‑share and revenue impact (weak so far):

• Despite the AI “new Bing,” Bing’s worldwide share remains only around 3–4%, while Google is still near 90% of global search as of 2024–2025. (en.wikipedia.org)
• A StatCounter‑based analysis found that from Feb 2023 to Jan 2024, Bing’s U.S. share rose modestly from 6.35% to 7.87%, and worldwide from 2.81% to 3.43%, while Google lost only 1.5–1.9 percentage points—described as little real change. (searchengineland.com)
• Ars Technica and other outlets noted that Microsoft’s AI infusion “may have helped Bing on the margins, but [hasn’t] meaningfully eroded Google’s search market share.” (arstechnica.com)
• Recent coverage still describes Google’s search business as extremely strong and dominant, with Google’s parent Alphabet approaching a $4T valuation and search/ads remaining its core profit engine. (en.wikipedia.org)

On a strict, numerical view of “materially erode”, the data show only a small share shift from Google to Bing; Google’s core search franchise remains overwhelmingly dominant in usage and revenue.

Strategic and competitive impact (clearly significant):

• The combination of ChatGPT’s rise and Microsoft’s GPT‑powered Bing triggered what multiple reports describe as “Code Red” inside Google, with management treating generative AI as a serious threat to its search empire and rushing AI‑powered search products (Bard → Gemini) to market. (forbes.com)
• Analyses of the “new Bing” launch say Microsoft “put pressure on the search industry,” forcing Google to accelerate its own AI search experiences and making search more expensive to operate (AI overviews, etc.), which could compress Google’s search margins even without massive share loss. (forbes.com)
• Regulators and courts have also begun to cite generative‑AI tools (including OpenAI/Microsoft offerings) as emerging competition that slightly weakens Google’s monopoly position, showing that policymakers now see Microsoft/OpenAI as a genuine, if still small, competitive threat in search. (reuters.com)

On a strategic/qualitative view of “significant impact” or “threaten,” Microsoft’s OpenAI‑integrated search clearly forced Google into a defensive posture, reshaped its product roadmap, and influenced antitrust assessments of Google’s dominance.

3. Why the overall verdict is ‘ambiguous’

• The prediction has two parts: (1) Microsoft will release an OpenAI‑integrated search engine (this is clearly right); and (2) that product will “have a significant impact” / “materially erode or threaten” Google’s search franchise within a few years.
• As of late 2025, Google’s actual search share and revenue have only modestly budged, so a strict, numbers‑only reading of “significant impact” or “materially erode” would say the prediction overstated the damage. (searchengineland.com)
• At the same time, Google and the wider industry have behaved as though the Microsoft–OpenAI move represents a serious, strategic threat, triggering code‑red responses, accelerated launches (Bard/Gemini, AI Overviews), and regulatory arguments that generative AI is finally creating real competition in search. (forbes.com)

Because reasonable observers can credibly argue either (a) that the impact on Google’s business metrics has not yet been “significant,” or (b) that the strategic threat and forced responses are a significant impact on its franchise, the truth of the prediction depends heavily on how you interpret “significant impact” / “materially erode or threaten.”

Given this genuine interpretive disagreement—despite sufficient elapsed time and data—the fairest classification is “ambiguous.”