Eric Schmidt Says Google Is Falling Behind on AI–and Remote Work Is Why(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Eric Schmidt Says Google Is Falling Behind on AI–and Remote Work Is Why
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/google-eric-schmidt-ai-remote-work-stanford-f92f4ca5
89 comments
There was a recent post on here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41239520) where someone noted that people at Google tend not to use their own products. When it was posted on X a Google Director said that they use Google software because it's a software company. Which does show part of the dysfunction - you have a lot of hardware being built by people who aren't using it.
I have no idea if similar things happen for many of their software products, but that would explain a lot behind things like GHC and how it's UX has gotten worse over time.
I have no idea if similar things happen for many of their software products, but that would explain a lot behind things like GHC and how it's UX has gotten worse over time.
There might be some truth to this, but under Ballmer's leadership, Microsoft's inflexibility re: the use of competing hardware came with its own problems. Since Nadella relaxed this policy, it's unclear to me whether you could say HW quality is worse. In any case, the significance of this policy may be overstated one way or the other.
> amazing quagmires built by geniuses
You’re describing Google 10 years ago.
My recent visits to its campuses have left me unimpressed. There are plenty of geniuses. But there are also many morons, and the mix is maybe a degree or two away from median corporate America.
You’re describing Google 10 years ago.
My recent visits to its campuses have left me unimpressed. There are plenty of geniuses. But there are also many morons, and the mix is maybe a degree or two away from median corporate America.
>You’re describing Google 10 years ago.
The Google of 10, or 15 years ago did not build quagmires. Google's interview process is so rigorous that I do not doubt the caliber of talent that even currently works there. I think people don't have enough perspective when they criticize something like the Pixel Phone or Gemini. I don't think those are products that could be built by "morons".
There is a lack of risk or commitment to whenever Google launches anything new, and they refuse to be anything other than a fast follower. Stadia was an great product - afaik it worked with acceptable latency and the hardware was good. Morons could not have executed it that well. The quagmire came from the fact the messaging was confusing and there was no leadership that had any vision or conviction for the product. When I look at something like Stadia, as a microsm of new Google projects, the last lesson I take away is "Stadia was a shoddy product because people didn't spend enough time in the office." More engineers sleeping overnight at Google wouldn't have saved Stadia. Replace Stadia with any half baked release out of Google.
I worry the same for Waymo - an amazing product, damn near futuristic at this point, that will fall on the sword because no one at Google will be willing to risk their career on it.
The Google of 10, or 15 years ago did not build quagmires. Google's interview process is so rigorous that I do not doubt the caliber of talent that even currently works there. I think people don't have enough perspective when they criticize something like the Pixel Phone or Gemini. I don't think those are products that could be built by "morons".
There is a lack of risk or commitment to whenever Google launches anything new, and they refuse to be anything other than a fast follower. Stadia was an great product - afaik it worked with acceptable latency and the hardware was good. Morons could not have executed it that well. The quagmire came from the fact the messaging was confusing and there was no leadership that had any vision or conviction for the product. When I look at something like Stadia, as a microsm of new Google projects, the last lesson I take away is "Stadia was a shoddy product because people didn't spend enough time in the office." More engineers sleeping overnight at Google wouldn't have saved Stadia. Replace Stadia with any half baked release out of Google.
I worry the same for Waymo - an amazing product, damn near futuristic at this point, that will fall on the sword because no one at Google will be willing to risk their career on it.
>Stadia was an great product - afaik it worked with acceptable latency and the hardware was good. Morons could not have executed it that well.
Stadia was early in the game, cloud gaming will maybe take off in the next 10 years....it's still too early.
Google has brilliant programmers but I think product managers and business managers are the problem.
Stadia was early in the game, cloud gaming will maybe take off in the next 10 years....it's still too early.
Google has brilliant programmers but I think product managers and business managers are the problem.
Maybe they just need to invent LeetCode interviews for PM and BA roles
> Google's interview process is so rigorous that I do not doubt the caliber of talent that even currently works there
I do! The process is rigorous. But in my opinion, rigorously wrong. It tests for problem-solving skills. But not something else. (I openly admit I don’t know.) It’s the freshman dorm commons at an Ivy League with a lot of money.
This nonsense clears out above the 8th tier of whatever ranking system they employ (principal?), for the most part. But it’s a lot of making increasingly-elaborate artisan firing mechanisms for guns that shoot a Petri dish of cancer, in the name of curing cancer. It’s technologically marvellous. But it’s so stupidly useless. (Bloom! Self-piloting boat that could mostly keep pace with the winds. Why? The balloon tore itself apart if inflating with even a bit of wind on launch.)
I do! The process is rigorous. But in my opinion, rigorously wrong. It tests for problem-solving skills. But not something else. (I openly admit I don’t know.) It’s the freshman dorm commons at an Ivy League with a lot of money.
This nonsense clears out above the 8th tier of whatever ranking system they employ (principal?), for the most part. But it’s a lot of making increasingly-elaborate artisan firing mechanisms for guns that shoot a Petri dish of cancer, in the name of curing cancer. It’s technologically marvellous. But it’s so stupidly useless. (Bloom! Self-piloting boat that could mostly keep pace with the winds. Why? The balloon tore itself apart if inflating with even a bit of wind on launch.)
I think Google's average employee is still almost certainly above the average for the industry as a whole, but they're definitely now only "above average".
Google's big problem is that they've always been dysfunctional. The AdSense money printer let them grow the company 100x over the last 15 years without the company actually figuring out how to scale up or solve any of their structural problems.
Google's big problem is that they've always been dysfunctional. The AdSense money printer let them grow the company 100x over the last 15 years without the company actually figuring out how to scale up or solve any of their structural problems.
[deleted]
It's also very strange to throw the average worker under the bus for what is clearly a leadership failure at practically all levels but obviously coming from the top. Google has a ton of innovation; the current AI race has deep Google roots but needs to capitalize the opportunity. Google needs leadership change, Sundar is no Satya and while he's done reasonably well, the market is too aggressive to let that retain leadership.
Google invented very little AFA actual products. They invented mind sets to make copying existing things with one questionably clever idea and turning it into the origin story of the world.
Exactly - GOOG product disfunction outside ads/search predates WFH by.. forever.
Nothing new here, just a new excuse by one of the guys that presided over it.
Nothing new here, just a new excuse by one of the guys that presided over it.
[deleted]
> you only need to look at Zuckerberg and Meta,
As much as I don't like what meta is doing in certain areas of their business, I think Zuckerberg has a pretty good corporate structure. From talking to colleagues and interview series I've been to there, it's a very "engineer-led" culture. Managers, at least a few years ago, were allegedly not even supposed to call it "their" team, they were supposed to say "supporting this team," etc. Very small nuances like that can actually cause a big shift in culture. It's also very flat, from what I understand. The most dysfunctional corporate environments I ever see typically have 5+ management layers above the lowest person on the tech rung. To me, that's ridiculous. It's just managers managing managers managing managers managing managers all the way down to the poor guys at the bottom trying to figure out what the heck is going on - it's impossibly anti-productive and prone to corruption.
As much as I don't like what meta is doing in certain areas of their business, I think Zuckerberg has a pretty good corporate structure. From talking to colleagues and interview series I've been to there, it's a very "engineer-led" culture. Managers, at least a few years ago, were allegedly not even supposed to call it "their" team, they were supposed to say "supporting this team," etc. Very small nuances like that can actually cause a big shift in culture. It's also very flat, from what I understand. The most dysfunctional corporate environments I ever see typically have 5+ management layers above the lowest person on the tech rung. To me, that's ridiculous. It's just managers managing managers managing managers managing managers all the way down to the poor guys at the bottom trying to figure out what the heck is going on - it's impossibly anti-productive and prone to corruption.
I work at Apple in the Apple Services Engineering (ASE) organization and am required to go to the office at least three days a week. I don’t see the point, given that the majority of my interactions are with employees located in Cupertino or London. Often, I have to wake up very early or stay in the office after hours to join meetings with people in the London office. As a non-Cupertino Apple employee, I am excluded from crucial decisions and have to learn about them in a distilled manner through—take a guess—more virtual meetings. WTF! Just let me work fully remote so I can consider moving to a low cost of living (LCOL) city with my family.
Eric reads your post from the deck of his chalet in Deer Valley, smiling wryly to himself...
> WTF! Just let me work fully remote so I can consider moving to a low cost of living (LCOL) city with my family.
That would mean extracting more value from your salary, and that might rock the boat of other employees in your salary bracket, so no.
That would mean extracting more value from your salary, and that might rock the boat of other employees in your salary bracket, so no.
theropost(2)
The entire video was on youtube and has since been taken private.
The media are taking his relatively tame opinion on work ethics and blowing it up into click-bait.
His comment wasn't targeting remote work or WFH specifically - but general work ethic of companies. He praised TSMC and Musk - who are notorious for poor treatment of workers. That's all you need to know about this. If WFH or remote work to blame - why isn't Musks' AI company taken off and overtaken Google by now?
This guy will get rich off of his startup investments where he's mostly an advisor - and he wants you to work 12 hr days to make it happen for him.
The media are taking his relatively tame opinion on work ethics and blowing it up into click-bait.
His comment wasn't targeting remote work or WFH specifically - but general work ethic of companies. He praised TSMC and Musk - who are notorious for poor treatment of workers. That's all you need to know about this. If WFH or remote work to blame - why isn't Musks' AI company taken off and overtaken Google by now?
This guy will get rich off of his startup investments where he's mostly an advisor - and he wants you to work 12 hr days to make it happen for him.
Once again Jamie Zawinski's 2011 blog post (which I won't link from HN) nails it:
> He's telling you the story of, "If you bust your ass and don't sleep, you'll get rich" because the only way that people in his line of work get richer is if young, poorly-socialized, naive geniuses believe that story! Without those coat-tails to ride, VCs might have to work for a living. Once that kid burns out, they'll just slot a new one in.
> I did make a bunch of money by winning the Netscape Startup Lottery, it's true. So did most of the early engineers. But the people who made 100x as much as the engineers did? I can tell you for a fact that none of them slept under their desk. If you look at a list of financially successful people from the software industry, I'll bet you get a very different view of what kind of sleep habits and office hours are successful than the one presented here.
> So if your goal is to enrich the Arringtons of the world while maybe, if you win the lottery, scooping some of the groundscore that they overlooked, then by all means, bust your ass while the bankers and speculators cheer you on."
> He's telling you the story of, "If you bust your ass and don't sleep, you'll get rich" because the only way that people in his line of work get richer is if young, poorly-socialized, naive geniuses believe that story! Without those coat-tails to ride, VCs might have to work for a living. Once that kid burns out, they'll just slot a new one in.
> I did make a bunch of money by winning the Netscape Startup Lottery, it's true. So did most of the early engineers. But the people who made 100x as much as the engineers did? I can tell you for a fact that none of them slept under their desk. If you look at a list of financially successful people from the software industry, I'll bet you get a very different view of what kind of sleep habits and office hours are successful than the one presented here.
> So if your goal is to enrich the Arringtons of the world while maybe, if you win the lottery, scooping some of the groundscore that they overlooked, then by all means, bust your ass while the bankers and speculators cheer you on."
He’s right, Americans won’t work like employees at TSMC in Taiwan. There were _decades_ of struggle to get eight hour per day/five day work weeks.
If Elon Musk, the richest man on earth, wants to work all the time, that’s his prerogative and right. He shouldn’t be allowed to force that on his workers though.
If Elon Musk, the richest man on earth, wants to work all the time, that’s his prerogative and right. He shouldn’t be allowed to force that on his workers though.
> He shouldn’t be allowed to force that on his workers though.
If you want to work under those conditions, it should be your own prerogative. There are plenty of places to work.
If you want to work under those conditions, it should be your own prerogative. There are plenty of places to work.
There are reasons there are regulations on safety conditions and hours. He shouldn’t be able to just ignore those because he’s rich.
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs
Until inevitably every employer requires it. Then you either work long hours or starve. It's only the collective effort of workers that protects us from exploitation by those with money.
He admired "how much Elon Musk got out of his employees," as if employees are some kind of copper mine that you're supposed to extract as much from as fast as you can. He kind of said the quiet part out loud. The leadership class measures other leaders by how much they can "get out of" people.
I dont get it. Study after study seems to indicate that remote work is more efficient all around. What is it that makes management so bearish towards remote?
When Microsoft "lost the mobile war" everybody was in the office still, no? Is it conceivable that google is behind on AI for reasons other than wfh?
When Microsoft "lost the mobile war" everybody was in the office still, no? Is it conceivable that google is behind on AI for reasons other than wfh?
> What is it that makes management so bearish towards remote?
I think it's not one specific reason - primarily though, I think, it gives employees more power over their employment situation and lives. Employers love power over their employees and I expect them to react harshly when they perceive this power is threatened.
Secondly, CEO's are typically lifelong corporate cretins with zero imagination, and they mostly just copy whatever CEO they think is reputable. The result is they all end up copying whatever everyone else is doing. I promise you, Meta's "year of efficiency" was not unique to meta, nor was that naming. So, once one declares remote work is dead, all of them will fall behind.
Thirdly, I think it is investments already made into real estate and sunk-cost fallacy type of thing. Probably not even a little part of it is the ego boost that comes with getting your preferred parking space, corner office where you can gaze smugly at your less fortunate underlings, etc.
They don't actually care about productivity, because I think the studies are pretty conclusive about remote work so far. It's far, far easier to waste time doing nothing in an office than at home, at least for me. I can easily kill a half hour doing a lap around the bullpens and appear to be working but in reality I'm doing nothing. In most corporate remote work environments, they'll notice really quickly if you're gone for a half hour because of all the productivity software.
I think it's not one specific reason - primarily though, I think, it gives employees more power over their employment situation and lives. Employers love power over their employees and I expect them to react harshly when they perceive this power is threatened.
Secondly, CEO's are typically lifelong corporate cretins with zero imagination, and they mostly just copy whatever CEO they think is reputable. The result is they all end up copying whatever everyone else is doing. I promise you, Meta's "year of efficiency" was not unique to meta, nor was that naming. So, once one declares remote work is dead, all of them will fall behind.
Thirdly, I think it is investments already made into real estate and sunk-cost fallacy type of thing. Probably not even a little part of it is the ego boost that comes with getting your preferred parking space, corner office where you can gaze smugly at your less fortunate underlings, etc.
They don't actually care about productivity, because I think the studies are pretty conclusive about remote work so far. It's far, far easier to waste time doing nothing in an office than at home, at least for me. I can easily kill a half hour doing a lap around the bullpens and appear to be working but in reality I'm doing nothing. In most corporate remote work environments, they'll notice really quickly if you're gone for a half hour because of all the productivity software.
>What is it that makes management so bearish towards remote?
You will be surprised how many people that became rich with startups have invested in real state. A lot of those investments are tanking now because of WFH, so they have something personal against it.
>When Microsoft "lost the mobile war" everybody was in the office still, no?
Microsoft lost both "the Internet" and "mobile" because they just could not understand it, like IBM could not understand a world with a computer in every desktop. It is a normal thing when your culture gives you success, the world changes, your culture remains the same.
Other companies appear that understand it and they win. If Google does not adpat, others will.
You will be surprised how many people that became rich with startups have invested in real state. A lot of those investments are tanking now because of WFH, so they have something personal against it.
>When Microsoft "lost the mobile war" everybody was in the office still, no?
Microsoft lost both "the Internet" and "mobile" because they just could not understand it, like IBM could not understand a world with a computer in every desktop. It is a normal thing when your culture gives you success, the world changes, your culture remains the same.
Other companies appear that understand it and they win. If Google does not adpat, others will.
Because people being self-disciplined and self-motivated annihilates the management layer. What do you manage when people manage themselves? You can be a project manager or you can be out of a job. They don't like that.
I think it was Joel Spolsky who said that a manager is someone who moves the chairs out of the way so that the individual contributors can do their work well.
I'm not a manager by title, but when I'm managing something, my objective is to get as many hassles out of the way as possible and reduce as much cognitive load off people as I can. The rest usually takes care of itself.
I'm not a manager by title, but when I'm managing something, my objective is to get as many hassles out of the way as possible and reduce as much cognitive load off people as I can. The rest usually takes care of itself.
I'm guessing you've never been a software engineering manager, or was one at a crappy place? The more self managing they are, the better! It turns into a coach/mentorship role at that point.
> turns into a coach/mentorship role at that point.
Sure, if the managers have any experience at all doing the actual work. These days that is rare, middle management are all just MBAs who don’t have a clue how to do the work.
Sure, if the managers have any experience at all doing the actual work. These days that is rare, middle management are all just MBAs who don’t have a clue how to do the work.
Again, signs you are working at a crappy place. Those places are incompetent and you should move to somewhere where it is competent.
I have actually been a manager at a big tech and a small start up, and yes there is politics at all sizes, but its extremely rare for an engineering manager to not have been an engineer previously. I was that manager, being the mentor.
I have actually been a manager at a big tech and a small start up, and yes there is politics at all sizes, but its extremely rare for an engineering manager to not have been an engineer previously. I was that manager, being the mentor.
They sure know how to send emails and slack messages though.
I am guessing you have never worked at a giant corporation with 5 levels of useless middle managers that have no purpose if there are no office politics to manage?
Those are the managers that hate work from home. Not managers actually doing productive management.
Those are the managers that hate work from home. Not managers actually doing productive management.
What do you mean "more efficient all around"? Bean counting won't produce great products.
> When Microsoft "lost the mobile war" everybody was in the office still, no?
If WFH magically solved all problems or prevented failure everyone would do it but lets be real...it doesn't. No one is going to be convinced by an argument like this.
If WFH magically solved all problems or prevented failure everyone would do it but lets be real...it doesn't. No one is going to be convinced by an argument like this.
RTO policies came from the top down. Executives and investors have portfolios that depend on commercial real estate, and prime residential real estate, increasing in value.
Slight conspiracy theory time: WFH has caused a drastic and sudden change to the economics of CBDs. Gradual change can be absorbed into economies, but a massive change leaves many people overexposed. For instance, office space valuations are taking a big hit. Here's the conspiracy: someone is ringing alarm bells behind the scenes, warning of another GFC sized event, and governments and people of influence like Schmidt are being urged to act.
Eric would probably not want to talk about how Google's leadership of which he hired at least a good half under his tenure is responsible for squandering an amazing technological and brand leadership that is now being threatened from every angle. His leadership led to the current situation, the leadership of Larry and then Sundar just continued the culture he put in place. He's simply trying to get people to focus on others because god forbid we question the work HE did as CEO.
Google in comparison to say an Apple or Amazon just never had product focussed or customer-focussed leadership. Contrast Sergey/Larry/Eric vs Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos.
Sergey & Larry had a fun research project that could make a lot of money, then moved on to other things that were fun for them.
Eric was the hired adult supervision and probably most responsible for the org structure they ended up with.
The origin, leadership and structure of Google has far more to do with its products than where its devs sit.
Sergey & Larry had a fun research project that could make a lot of money, then moved on to other things that were fun for them.
Eric was the hired adult supervision and probably most responsible for the org structure they ended up with.
The origin, leadership and structure of Google has far more to do with its products than where its devs sit.
Google is falling behind because at a certain point, employees will look at the tenuous connection between the company's overall success and their individual success, and make the rational choice to prioritize the latter even if it is not aligned with the former. That means finding any and all justifications for additional headcount, not collaborating across teams, making decisions based exclusively on short term considerations, etc. In short, doing whatever it takes to get promoted. Why would anyone take a risky bet on a low probability high upside project?
Eric was an EM -> VP at Sun back in the day, so he knows exactly how that shit works.
Eric was an EM -> VP at Sun back in the day, so he knows exactly how that shit works.
You don't have to look too hard to find examples of fully-remote (from day 1) startups succeeding (e.g., Redpanda eating Confluent's lunch). If your company is struggling to succeed then your product(s) simply isn't good enough, and thinking that having more butts in seats inside of a big office building is going to change that is wishful thinking by the people who don't actually build the products.
Supabase is another great example.
They released Gemini without even token red-teaming and it wasn't because they didn't put in enough hours, it was because they decided as a matter of policy that they would rather pretend not to know the outcome of that exercise.
Google makes tons of money each quarter, but cancels projects / products, and lays off people. That does not improve moral. Why should I work my ass off and then my project is cancelled and I am laid off?
Problems in AI is leadership problems.
Problems in AI is leadership problems.
Could it be that people just aren't that motivated to build AI for someone who lays people off (therefore doubling the workload for all who remained) while paying themselves hundred million dollar bonuses? Nah, it's those lazy plebeians' fault.
I’m not convinced by his claim, and I’d love to see some convincing data backing him up.
I think a more likely explanation is that Google’s own internal policies, procedures, and culture (unrelated to remote work) are the reasons for falling behind.
I think a more likely explanation is that Google’s own internal policies, procedures, and culture (unrelated to remote work) are the reasons for falling behind.
Looks like Schmidt has walked back his claims now. https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/google-eric-schmidt-ai-remote-wo...
From the article "I misspoke about Google and their work hours,” Schmidt said Wednesday in an email to The Wall Street Journal. “I regret my error."
Looks like that comment brought more heat than he preferred.
From the article "I misspoke about Google and their work hours,” Schmidt said Wednesday in an email to The Wall Street Journal. “I regret my error."
Looks like that comment brought more heat than he preferred.
Eric Schmidt says remote work is why Google’s lagging in AI, but was early success just about time clocked in the office and in person collaboration? I really doubt it. The real issue to me is the high number of “rest and vest” hires and how big companies manage talent when they grow past 10k employees.
Blaming remote work feels lazy and very clickbaity, productivity is way more complex. I personally gravitate towards being in person at the office as much as possible but I would never say my remote coworkers are less productive because they work from home.
Blaming remote work feels lazy and very clickbaity, productivity is way more complex. I personally gravitate towards being in person at the office as much as possible but I would never say my remote coworkers are less productive because they work from home.
Eric Schmidt works remotely.
And COVID let everyone try working the way VCs always have. Unsurprisingly everyone liked it.
Precisely my observation of the capital vs labor aspect of COVID.
We all got a taste of the flexibility the C-suite has always exercised, and they don't like that. Now that the job market has turned enough they are trying to take it away as hard & fast as possible.
It would take a serious downturn to kill it completely and even then I doubt it. While you don't see a lot of arcade games in offices anymore, they didn't get people back to wearing suits...
As soon as you get into competition for talent, in-office 2~3-day vs 4-day, or hybrid vs full in-office will quickly become a selling point again.
We all got a taste of the flexibility the C-suite has always exercised, and they don't like that. Now that the job market has turned enough they are trying to take it away as hard & fast as possible.
It would take a serious downturn to kill it completely and even then I doubt it. While you don't see a lot of arcade games in offices anymore, they didn't get people back to wearing suits...
As soon as you get into competition for talent, in-office 2~3-day vs 4-day, or hybrid vs full in-office will quickly become a selling point again.
It's management's attempt at cargo-culting success. But success has more to do with good ideas combined with talent than anything else. It has nothing to do with where the talent rests their butts during the day.
I remember the office days - it was a room full of silent people, all chatting away on Slack. We can do that literally from anywhere.
I remember the office days - it was a room full of silent people, all chatting away on Slack. We can do that literally from anywhere.
I haven't had much same-room interaction with my colleagues since 1996. In fact it was an observation that even though colleagues were on the same campus, I generally never saw them, interacting only via phone and email, that led me to conclude that remote work should be feasible, in 2000.
I was WFH in 1997, using a 56k modem, uploading huge Photoshop print-ready files. I made it work.
I was tired of driving 3 hours a day (which equals a full month per year) in traffic. I told my boss "I'm not coming in to the office anymore in two weeks" without really having a plan for what comes next - either I'd quit or ???. He suggested I could work from home (they didn't want to lose me), and I jumped at the chance. It worked great for 6 months until that company went out of business. I was the only one working from home, so the company going out of business definitely wasn't because of WFH.
I was tired of driving 3 hours a day (which equals a full month per year) in traffic. I told my boss "I'm not coming in to the office anymore in two weeks" without really having a plan for what comes next - either I'd quit or ???. He suggested I could work from home (they didn't want to lose me), and I jumped at the chance. It worked great for 6 months until that company went out of business. I was the only one working from home, so the company going out of business definitely wasn't because of WFH.
If Google is falling behind, it's because they are not and never were a product company, and that's a direct result of Schmidt's leadership. His CEO experience was at Novell, which also had lousy product focus and lost to Microsoft, which say what you will, is pretty good at product. He led Google and damn near 20 years ago Steve Yegge famously called out Google for being terrible at product, and nothing has fundamentally changed since.
Let's face it, at this point creating an LLM is not that difficult, relatively speaking. I can download dozens with Ollama, and many of them are brilliant. But look at ChatGPT or Claude and then look at Google - which is the better product?
Let's face it, at this point creating an LLM is not that difficult, relatively speaking. I can download dozens with Ollama, and many of them are brilliant. But look at ChatGPT or Claude and then look at Google - which is the better product?
This is absolutely ridiculous statement. I have been invited to Google HQ several times. There is an entire culture there that is to blame, working from home is the smallest of the problems.
I would say risk aversion is the biggest problem by far. Google culture is also radically woke. Google is made by PhDs that always wanted to isolate from the world, they had always very weak customer support, everything was automated and had no contact with the customer so they ended isolated from the needs of your customers and lived in their own world.
On one side you see super brilliant people there. On the other you see total disconnection with the needs of the people because they were isolated on purpose.
Google was designed so people could almost live on campus, most of the time. So you could have 30, or 40 year old adults that are actually like children, not taking responsibility for their lives, isolated from the world most people live. How are you supposed to improve the world when you do not have incentives to improve it because you are not feeling the pain?
Your world is totally different from most people's.
This was obvious to me as an outsider. It is difficult to se culture from inside as you get used to it.
The old generation never understands. Science improves one funeral at a time.
I have worked remotely most of my life. We can work harder than anyone else precisely because we do not need to spend one/two hours a day commuting. We can focus without distraction for hours, control our working environment and do the deepest work.
But like anything else, you need to learn how to do it right and it will take decades before traditional companies learn how to do it.
I would say risk aversion is the biggest problem by far. Google culture is also radically woke. Google is made by PhDs that always wanted to isolate from the world, they had always very weak customer support, everything was automated and had no contact with the customer so they ended isolated from the needs of your customers and lived in their own world.
On one side you see super brilliant people there. On the other you see total disconnection with the needs of the people because they were isolated on purpose.
Google was designed so people could almost live on campus, most of the time. So you could have 30, or 40 year old adults that are actually like children, not taking responsibility for their lives, isolated from the world most people live. How are you supposed to improve the world when you do not have incentives to improve it because you are not feeling the pain?
Your world is totally different from most people's.
This was obvious to me as an outsider. It is difficult to se culture from inside as you get used to it.
The old generation never understands. Science improves one funeral at a time.
I have worked remotely most of my life. We can work harder than anyone else precisely because we do not need to spend one/two hours a day commuting. We can focus without distraction for hours, control our working environment and do the deepest work.
But like anything else, you need to learn how to do it right and it will take decades before traditional companies learn how to do it.
"It's not our managerial incompetence and lack of focus, it's those lazy devs working from home"
Google has been faltering on anything beyond old staples like Search and Gmail for over 15 years way before WFH was anything there.
And even search and gmail are more sustained by momentum, rather than innovation, and have been worsening continuously...
Google has been faltering on anything beyond old staples like Search and Gmail for over 15 years way before WFH was anything there.
And even search and gmail are more sustained by momentum, rather than innovation, and have been worsening continuously...
Prior to the pandemic, my roommate who works at Google would generally be at home playing FFXIV most of the day for like 2 weekdays per week. It sounded like a good gig. I don't think this outcome has much to do with whether remote work is allowed or not. In some other orgs it might not be possible to convince management that this is fine to do.
My my he’s certainly very “hands-on”[1] fella, isn’t he? Makes sense why he’s a champion of RTO.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/technology/eric-schmidt-a...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/technology/eric-schmidt-a...
[deleted]
Google had mandatory return-to-office...
[deleted]
"In response, Schmidt emphasised that his views were personal, as he is no longer a Google employee."
Is he still a Google shareholder?
Is he still a Google shareholder?
I wish the media would use his full title:
Eric Schmidt, Bilderberg Steering Committee member, makes up excuses for why Google's AI efforts are being surpassed by open source.
https://bilderbergmeetings.org/background/steering-committee...
Eric Schmidt, Bilderberg Steering Committee member, makes up excuses for why Google's AI efforts are being surpassed by open source.
https://bilderbergmeetings.org/background/steering-committee...
Non-paywall source https://observer.com/2024/08/eric-schmidt-google-remote-work...
Maybe this thread should be merged with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41241682 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41249946#41250600
Maybe this thread should be merged with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41241682 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41249946#41250600
If you’re still under the impression that network and server design wasn’t about enabling remote work from the start, then you’re simply not seeing the bigger picture. The entire foundation of these systems was built to break down geographical barriers and enable people to work and collaborate from anywhere. This was never just about sharing resources—it was always about laying the groundwork for what would evolve into remote work.
From day one, the goal was clear: create networks that connect people regardless of their physical location, setting the stage for the flexible, remote work environments we have today. The evolution of these technologies wasn’t a happy accident; it was a deliberate move towards a world where work isn’t confined to an office.
If you disagree with this, you’re not just missing the point—you’re denying the very essence of what these innovations were designed to achieve. The idea that remote work wasn’t central to these developments is, frankly, shortsighted. The fact is, the potential for remote work was embedded in these systems from the beginning.
So, if you still don’t see that enabling remote work was the core outcome of these advancements, it’s time to wake up to the reality. To deny this is to fundamentally misunderstand the direction and purpose of network and server design from its inception. It’s not just about what these systems can do—it’s about what they were always meant to enable. And if you can’t grasp that, you’re not just behind the curve—you’re lost in the past.
From day one, the goal was clear: create networks that connect people regardless of their physical location, setting the stage for the flexible, remote work environments we have today. The evolution of these technologies wasn’t a happy accident; it was a deliberate move towards a world where work isn’t confined to an office.
If you disagree with this, you’re not just missing the point—you’re denying the very essence of what these innovations were designed to achieve. The idea that remote work wasn’t central to these developments is, frankly, shortsighted. The fact is, the potential for remote work was embedded in these systems from the beginning.
So, if you still don’t see that enabling remote work was the core outcome of these advancements, it’s time to wake up to the reality. To deny this is to fundamentally misunderstand the direction and purpose of network and server design from its inception. It’s not just about what these systems can do—it’s about what they were always meant to enable. And if you can’t grasp that, you’re not just behind the curve—you’re lost in the past.
I was around at the time and this is partly correct but somewhat wrong. We were trying to connect people so they could share information and collaborate, but those people at the time were in (different) offices. The notion of people working from their home didn't really arise for regular people (ironically the CEO class always did) until powerful laptops and DSL or HFC residential service appeared. Sometime around 2000.
I first worked from home for one project in 1992 but I had to lug a computer from the office -- several trips to the car to get it all loaded. And I had no network connectivity. A few years later in 2000 I began full time remote work but I still needed a rack of servers in my basement and eventually constructed my own ISP to get decent connectivity. Totally remote working where it's just me and a laptop and a fast network probably took another 10 years to arrive.
So if you got in your time machine and talked to Vint Cerf in 1990, sure he'd be interested in the vision that nobody would need a physical office at some time in the future, but that wasn't why he was building the network because nobody could practically do so for at least a decade and nobody at the time could predict how long it would take. Some predicted advances such as telemedicine and remote learning only took off due to a pandemic, for societal and regulatory reasons, not technical ones.
I first worked from home for one project in 1992 but I had to lug a computer from the office -- several trips to the car to get it all loaded. And I had no network connectivity. A few years later in 2000 I began full time remote work but I still needed a rack of servers in my basement and eventually constructed my own ISP to get decent connectivity. Totally remote working where it's just me and a laptop and a fast network probably took another 10 years to arrive.
So if you got in your time machine and talked to Vint Cerf in 1990, sure he'd be interested in the vision that nobody would need a physical office at some time in the future, but that wasn't why he was building the network because nobody could practically do so for at least a decade and nobody at the time could predict how long it would take. Some predicted advances such as telemedicine and remote learning only took off due to a pandemic, for societal and regulatory reasons, not technical ones.
Garbage. Various people worked on various parts of networking over decades and the idea that they all held some common goal is silly.
It's really a miracle: a lot of engineers at Intel work on some obscure RTL and a CPU comes out of this Brownian motion! And a bunch of sleep-deprived PIP avoiders at Amazon write random Java and C++ - and whoa! A e-commerce platform!
You seem very confident in your view. Would you like to provide some supporting evidence?
Arthur C. Clarke famously predicted all of this in 1964. Basically: distance will become irrelevant to intellectual work.
I think the focus on work was true at first, but the majority evolved towards serving web pages and video streaming, on cell phones and TVs more than computers.
The networks and devices that get built evolve to meet public demand, if decisions are being made they'll inevitably follow the money instead of some 20-year plan. Priorities can change.
The networks and devices that get built evolve to meet public demand, if decisions are being made they'll inevitably follow the money instead of some 20-year plan. Priorities can change.
The issue is that a company which was local first will not be able to turn into a remote company because the company culture is completely wrong for it. It is impossible to run a team locally the same way you do remotely.
If the first instinct of everyone is to have an in person meeting them you're in a company which can't run remotely. If you're in a company where you get sent an instant message then you can't run it outside of the single time zone where the headquarters are.
You need to be comfortable with emails and high latency responses to have a company that can run globally.
If the first instinct of everyone is to have an in person meeting them you're in a company which can't run remotely. If you're in a company where you get sent an instant message then you can't run it outside of the single time zone where the headquarters are.
You need to be comfortable with emails and high latency responses to have a company that can run globally.
[deleted]
I don't really care about the remote work argument, but this fight is the rug that covers the real problem. Google products are _the_ definition of political dysfunction. Absolutely amazing quagmires built by geniuses who were all more concerned with leaving their mark so they could get a promotion or being as milquetoast as possible in order to not rock the boat. Google practically invented the technology, but it's its applications looked funny AdSense revenue and it was quickly shelved.
Google falling behind on AI indicated a real leadership problem and you only need to look at Zuckerberg and Meta, which has similar policies, and has a far more cohesive vision and execution on AI; but it looks like Eric Schmidt doesn't have the balls to call out leadership.