Google employees criticize CEO for “dumpster fire” response to ChatGPT(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Google employees criticize CEO for “dumpster fire” response to ChatGPT
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/10/google-employees-slam-ceo-sundar-pichai-for-rushed-bard-announcement.html
458 comments
An important difference, to me, is that a lot of people already have familiarity with ChatGPT; either directly or through friends, family or just news.
Most of those folks (judging by my own friends) had very low expectations which ChatGPT blew out of the water. When they read "Microsoft search with ChatGPT" they are looking for integration of at least somewhat known quantity into a not so great (perception-wise) search. Win-win. If that bot stumbles in demo, no big deal. They already saw 100 examples, 95 good and 5 goofy; adding one to either bucket is not critical.
Google AI bot is an unknown quantity. Google search is (again, just perception wise) the leader in the search. When the bot stumbles it is a big red flag.
I really do not know why Google rushed it out instead of coming up with a friendly "hey, play with our toy first" approach. With this approach the bot can be iterated and made cool (hey, we can pair it with a stable diffusion-like painter for kids; or a lullaby composer; whaterver). Once cool, then it is "hey, you know, you can start leveraging it from the google search tomorrow". Screwups like this really make me think Google's rot is very broad. My 2c.
Most of those folks (judging by my own friends) had very low expectations which ChatGPT blew out of the water. When they read "Microsoft search with ChatGPT" they are looking for integration of at least somewhat known quantity into a not so great (perception-wise) search. Win-win. If that bot stumbles in demo, no big deal. They already saw 100 examples, 95 good and 5 goofy; adding one to either bucket is not critical.
Google AI bot is an unknown quantity. Google search is (again, just perception wise) the leader in the search. When the bot stumbles it is a big red flag.
I really do not know why Google rushed it out instead of coming up with a friendly "hey, play with our toy first" approach. With this approach the bot can be iterated and made cool (hey, we can pair it with a stable diffusion-like painter for kids; or a lullaby composer; whaterver). Once cool, then it is "hey, you know, you can start leveraging it from the google search tomorrow". Screwups like this really make me think Google's rot is very broad. My 2c.
Google search results have been decreasing in quality quite dramatically in the past few years for me.
I need to spend more and more time crafting complex search queries tuned to my needs, and still most of the results are more or less irrelevant. Or sometimes it seems to completely ignore the syntax I give it.
Basically, Google search does not understand what I'm asking. Sure AI hallucinates stuff, but at least the stuff it hallucinates is mostly relevant to what I'm asking.
I'm not saying I'm ready to replace Google by ChatGPT or Bing AI. I'm saying this is a huge step in the right direction overall for human-computer interaction, and Google has been sleeping at the wheel for this one.
I'm not saying I'm ready to replace Google by ChatGPT or Bing AI. I'm saying this is a huge step in the right direction overall for human-computer interaction, and Google has been sleeping at the wheel for this one.
I switched from Google search in 2017 to DuckDuckGo and haven’t looked back. I started switching family away to DDG during the pandemic and they haven’t noticed.
Google has a legacy moat but they aren’t the best by a noticeable amount anymore.
Google has a legacy moat but they aren’t the best by a noticeable amount anymore.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, looks like we both had a similar path around the same time. I tried DDG very early on maybe 2012/13 and the results were awful but I tried it again in 2017 and found it works fine.
I have since moved to Ecosia a year or two ago as I found the results were very similar and have no issue with it.
Does make me sad the traffic page is gone: https://instruments.digital/duckduckgo-traffic-archive/
I have since moved to Ecosia a year or two ago as I found the results were very similar and have no issue with it.
Does make me sad the traffic page is gone: https://instruments.digital/duckduckgo-traffic-archive/
DuckDuckGo hasn't had results on par with Qwant.com for me. I do find myself using DDG too often tho since it's default on Debian Firefox.
This is why they may need a new CEO.
Currently they have a "caretaker CEO".
Google was sitting on a massive cash cow, so they appointed someone who would just keep it ticking over.
In the face of an existential threat, like ChatGPT, they need someone who can actually drive innovation. Not innovate themselves, nobody expects a CEO to do that, just create a culture which has a hope in hell of rising to fend off challenges to the empire.
They don't have this.
That have a CEO who is only capable in "good times" ... along with most of the company.
Faced with sufficient adversity, they will need a CEO who can succeed in the face of adversity.
Currently they have a "caretaker CEO".
Google was sitting on a massive cash cow, so they appointed someone who would just keep it ticking over.
In the face of an existential threat, like ChatGPT, they need someone who can actually drive innovation. Not innovate themselves, nobody expects a CEO to do that, just create a culture which has a hope in hell of rising to fend off challenges to the empire.
They don't have this.
That have a CEO who is only capable in "good times" ... along with most of the company.
Faced with sufficient adversity, they will need a CEO who can succeed in the face of adversity.
Do you disable any data tracking or personalization? Do you log into a Google account? Do you use a VPN?
> instead of coming up with a friendly "hey, play with our toy first" approach.
They have this. But it's internal. But with 200,000 employees, that's a plenty big enough pool of testers.
They have this. But it's internal. But with 200,000 employees, that's a plenty big enough pool of testers.
Internal doesn't make it cool. It's not about testing, it's about developing familiarity.
"Google uses Bayesian filtering the way Microsoft uses the if statement"*
This quote is 18 years old, and already by then it was established understanding that Google had extreme technical magic the rest of the world lacked. A rushed, bumbled tech demo in an area a company who for decades has invested billions in and widely enjoyed a perception of AI supremacy is a wildly different thing to a polished demo from a company nobody expects anything good to come from.
They have constantly encouraged the belief in their technical dominance in their marketing and hiring for as long as I can remember. If that's the perception externally, imagine how much more scathing a defeat it must feel to current employees.
* https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/10/17/news-121/
This quote is 18 years old, and already by then it was established understanding that Google had extreme technical magic the rest of the world lacked. A rushed, bumbled tech demo in an area a company who for decades has invested billions in and widely enjoyed a perception of AI supremacy is a wildly different thing to a polished demo from a company nobody expects anything good to come from.
They have constantly encouraged the belief in their technical dominance in their marketing and hiring for as long as I can remember. If that's the perception externally, imagine how much more scathing a defeat it must feel to current employees.
* https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/10/17/news-121/
Nothing weird about it. It's called first mover's advantage. Wanna make electric cars, you have to beat Tesla. No matter how nice your car is. If your range is worse. Booo. If your self driving is equivalent or worse, Boo. Whatever Tesla has done, you must be better at. You need better design, cheaper price, better range, better reliability else no one would notice you.
Apple came after Blackberry. Dell came after Commodore / Amiga. Facebook came after MySpace. Google came after Altavisa and Yahoo. Verizon came after AOL. Alternating Current came after Direct Current.
Microsoft Word came after WordPerfect. Chrome came after Netscape Communicator. Python came after Perl. Nintendo came after Atari.
I feel like first movers advantage is a myth.
Microsoft Word came after WordPerfect. Chrome came after Netscape Communicator. Python came after Perl. Nintendo came after Atari.
I feel like first movers advantage is a myth.
I feel like first movers advantage is a myth.
I don't think there's any question that there is an advantage to being a first mover. What I think is a mistake is thinking that it's an absolute advantage, and/or not recognizing that it's also true that there are advantages to to not being the first mover. I mean, there's a reason why the "fast follower strategy"[1] exists as well.
I think in reality though, all of this is over-simplifying things. There are a LOT of variables in the equation for "does this product succeed or not" where "being first to market" is just one of those variables.
[1]: https://fourweekmba.com/fast-follower/
I don't think there's any question that there is an advantage to being a first mover. What I think is a mistake is thinking that it's an absolute advantage, and/or not recognizing that it's also true that there are advantages to to not being the first mover. I mean, there's a reason why the "fast follower strategy"[1] exists as well.
I think in reality though, all of this is over-simplifying things. There are a LOT of variables in the equation for "does this product succeed or not" where "being first to market" is just one of those variables.
[1]: https://fourweekmba.com/fast-follower/
First movers without a fast follower is a huge advantage. There's a great conference talk with Bezos about how he mentioned with disruptive products, there's usually a fast follower entering into the competition - but he was surprised at how long it took other companies to copy AWS.
Similarly with Tesla
Similarly with Tesla
Apple came after blackberry, but as the parent comment states... you have to be much better and by all accounts the iPhone was much better at things consumers cared about. Dell made better computers. Facebook was nicer than myspace in UI/UX. Google returned superior results.
So their point stands. They have to be much better. And all of these were.
So their point stands. They have to be much better. And all of these were.
Yes, basically, when you stop innovating and are only doing incremental improvement, someone is going to come and eat your lunch.
One thing a lot of people misremembers is just how long it took. Microsoft Word was launched only couple of years after WordPerfect, in the early 80s. It didn't dominate word processing until the middle of the 90s.
It took more than a decade. They basically built out the features and waited until their competitors made some strategic mistake, of which they made several in that decade.
It was pretty much the same with Netscape and MSIE. That monopoly misuse probably helped, but Netscape also seemed bent on killing itself. Despite the mismanagement, it still took almost five years.
Perl was more popular than Python for more than a decade. Having much of the early web developed on it didn't help in the long run. First mover advantage might be a thing, but it never wins in the long run. And in the long run, ten years is nothing.
It took more than a decade. They basically built out the features and waited until their competitors made some strategic mistake, of which they made several in that decade.
It was pretty much the same with Netscape and MSIE. That monopoly misuse probably helped, but Netscape also seemed bent on killing itself. Despite the mismanagement, it still took almost five years.
Perl was more popular than Python for more than a decade. Having much of the early web developed on it didn't help in the long run. First mover advantage might be a thing, but it never wins in the long run. And in the long run, ten years is nothing.
Perl killed itself with the Perl5 transition to Perl6. I lived the 3->4 and the 4->5 transitions. When I wanted to try my hand at OOP, I ran screaming from Perl5 to Scheme and eventually Python.
20 years later I'm still programming in Python.
20 years later I'm still programming in Python.
Ah yes, but Python nearly killed itself in the Python2 -> Python3 transition.
guess everyone learned that don't try this.
> They basically built out the features and waited until their competitors made some strategic mistake,
Microsoft Word was a loser, but then they changed out the operating system under the winners.
Microsoft Word was a loser, but then they changed out the operating system under the winners.
Yes, but the winner also refused to get with the times and embrace the operating system twice. First, they were abysmally slow to Windows 3.1, despite having years to get something together (in part b/c they understood that Microsoft wanted to win at word processing but they underestimated the importance of being on the OS anyway) and then a few years later with Windows 95.
Word Perfect had the OS changed from under them but also had every warning that the change was coming and refused to move to sturdier ground.
Word Perfect had the OS changed from under them but also had every warning that the change was coming and refused to move to sturdier ground.
That's too bad.
It was pretty easy to write off Windows 3.1, and continue to be a solid solution on MS-DOS and with Netware, etc.
But Windows 95 had a lot of fanfare in advance that suggested it would have much better uptake. And Windows NT in parallel was developing a credible foundation, and it got the "new shell" as an option around the time of Win95. My recollection at the time was that the writing should've been on the wall, that Windows was going to be the Microsoft platform.
If WordPerfect was slow to move, that's a bad combination with, er, not as direct of access to the platform teams.
It was pretty easy to write off Windows 3.1, and continue to be a solid solution on MS-DOS and with Netware, etc.
But Windows 95 had a lot of fanfare in advance that suggested it would have much better uptake. And Windows NT in parallel was developing a credible foundation, and it got the "new shell" as an option around the time of Win95. My recollection at the time was that the writing should've been on the wall, that Windows was going to be the Microsoft platform.
If WordPerfect was slow to move, that's a bad combination with, er, not as direct of access to the platform teams.
> I feel like first movers advantage is a myth.
Maybe. No company lives forever, at some point all of these things will be unseated. But those first movers had pretty good runs, as far as technology companies go. Maybe they aren't still #1 but if you're #1 for a decade or more, that might be as much as any one company can "win" here.
Maybe. No company lives forever, at some point all of these things will be unseated. But those first movers had pretty good runs, as far as technology companies go. Maybe they aren't still #1 but if you're #1 for a decade or more, that might be as much as any one company can "win" here.
> Apple came after Blackberry.
Apple and specifically Jony Ive started the development of a handheld computer in the early 90s. Apple was definitely not a second comer to that market.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jony-ives-first-apple-design...
Apple and specifically Jony Ive started the development of a handheld computer in the early 90s. Apple was definitely not a second comer to that market.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jony-ives-first-apple-design...
> Apple and specifically Jony Ive started the development of a handheld computer in the early 90s. Apple was definitely not a second comer to that market.
That's an odd way to define "not a second comer". The Apple Newton was a PDA, but it wasn't the first to hit the market.
Sure, it was in development before that, but that's true of every device that was released in that generation. And besides, "first mover advantage" doesn't refer to the first to begin research on a product; it refers to the first to release a product into the market.
That's an odd way to define "not a second comer". The Apple Newton was a PDA, but it wasn't the first to hit the market.
Sure, it was in development before that, but that's true of every device that was released in that generation. And besides, "first mover advantage" doesn't refer to the first to begin research on a product; it refers to the first to release a product into the market.
Well the Newton was the second attempt by Apple, first they spun off General Magic and then pivoted when GM built hype and Apple remained a minority owner.
Every single one of those things you just listed is an improvement in one or more ways (to the average user.) So I really don’t see your point at all
I think you confirmed what he was saying.
All of those products that came after are better than the first movers. If Apple was worse than BB, do you think it would have won?
All of those products that came after are better than the first movers. If Apple was worse than BB, do you think it would have won?
The problem with this analysis is that first movers usually don't win.
It depends on the definition what "first" means.
For example Amazon Kindle was not the first eReader. But its platform-ecosystem was years sooner than Barnes & Nobles Nook and Kindle won out.
Amazon itself is technically a "second mover" because there was an obscure online book shop before, but no one else from the established sales companies or Walmart could compete with them.
Tesla was not the first electric car. But it is arguably the first reaching a production of a million, so it is the first e-car from a "main" manufacturer?
For example Amazon Kindle was not the first eReader. But its platform-ecosystem was years sooner than Barnes & Nobles Nook and Kindle won out.
Amazon itself is technically a "second mover" because there was an obscure online book shop before, but no one else from the established sales companies or Walmart could compete with them.
Tesla was not the first electric car. But it is arguably the first reaching a production of a million, so it is the first e-car from a "main" manufacturer?
Incumbent companies have huge advantages, and it takes a lot to dislodge them even with new technology (as in your Amazon example.) Basically they have to be unwilling to match competitors' tech over a long period of time.
In my life I've seen that happen a handful of times. When it does, it's usually due to (1) tragic management ineptitude over an extended period of time, or (2) fear of cannibalizing an existing profitable business (e.g.,: Kodak refusing to move from film to digital cameras, or the car industry being slow to re-invest away from ICE production.) I see no evidence (yet) that AI-enhanced search is going to threaten Google's core business of "displaying ads on relevant search results", so the main risk here is long-term management failure. Right now Google's management is doing everything it can to signal (to shareholders and partners) that they're going to throw every resource they have at the problem.
In my life I've seen that happen a handful of times. When it does, it's usually due to (1) tragic management ineptitude over an extended period of time, or (2) fear of cannibalizing an existing profitable business (e.g.,: Kodak refusing to move from film to digital cameras, or the car industry being slow to re-invest away from ICE production.) I see no evidence (yet) that AI-enhanced search is going to threaten Google's core business of "displaying ads on relevant search results", so the main risk here is long-term management failure. Right now Google's management is doing everything it can to signal (to shareholders and partners) that they're going to throw every resource they have at the problem.
Kodak actually had one of the first digital cameras, and the company still exists. And automotive OEMs are investing heavily into EVs, and they do this comparatively fast for companies of the size we are talking about.
"Find the company that survived and got big, then carefully move the historical goalpost so it's first"
This sounds more like "incumbent" than "first"
They usually don't win in the long-run because someone comes along with
> better design, cheaper price, better range, better reliability
That doesn't mean the first mover advantage doesn't exist.
> better design, cheaper price, better range, better reliability
That doesn't mean the first mover advantage doesn't exist.
First movers are the first to hit the innovater’s dilemma.
They are trapped by the decisions they made as first movers, while later incumbents have freedom to create improvements without worry about the installed base.
Apple is one company that never seemed to fall into that trap. They just tell the installed base “fuck you, buy the new thing” and somehow get away with it.
They are trapped by the decisions they made as first movers, while later incumbents have freedom to create improvements without worry about the installed base.
Apple is one company that never seemed to fall into that trap. They just tell the installed base “fuck you, buy the new thing” and somehow get away with it.
They're also very very rarely the first mover.
Apple comes in and innovates against something that existed but was user hostile.
It actually did happen to Apple over a long enough horizon, they cornered the paid digital music market by perfecting it, and upended it, and didn't innovate/upend again, and along came Spotify to upend it for them.
Apple comes in and innovates against something that existed but was user hostile.
It actually did happen to Apple over a long enough horizon, they cornered the paid digital music market by perfecting it, and upended it, and didn't innovate/upend again, and along came Spotify to upend it for them.
Old enough to remember when Google was the plucky newcomer in a crowded search engine industry.
Google wasn't profitable. Like an ant eating the wrong sort of fungus, the advertising companies won and Google's zombified husk carries on.
Cordyceps fungi
Old enough to remember when Alta Vista was obviously going to win because it came from DEC.
In the long run, sure. In the short to medium term, though, they solidly dominate the field.
We're still in that phase phase of both Tesla and Bing AI.
We're still in that phase phase of both Tesla and Bing AI.
In the short term Google has an utterly dominant position in Search, and Bing AI is basically irrelevant to this. What people are worried about are the implications for the long term.
I have switched to Bing and Edge, then wrote a script to rack up points in hopes that I get moved up for the new BingGPT. Google search results have been trending toward crap for a while from my POV. 'Google it' is sticky, but I absolutely have not missed a beat with Edge and Bing. In fact, Edge has been a really pleasant surprise with features Chrome doesn't have. A calculator in the side bar is fracking awesome!
>> A calculator in the side bar is fracking awesome!
Another case of the browser doing what the OS and Desktop environment should be doing. I like to point at tabs - DEs and GUI toolkits never really came up with a good way to handle multiple documents well.
Another case of the browser doing what the OS and Desktop environment should be doing. I like to point at tabs - DEs and GUI toolkits never really came up with a good way to handle multiple documents well.
I think every major OS ships with some sort of calculator. The problem is discoverability. If you're in the middle of browsing, it's quite a bit of effort to say "oh that's right I have a calculator on here let me just find it in the start menu/Applications folder" as opposed to it just being there in the same app you're already using.
Widgets would be a potential solution but they keep being tried and abandoned soon after in desktop OSes.
Widgets would be a potential solution but they keep being tried and abandoned soon after in desktop OSes.
In linux I press the super key (windows key), type "calc" and enter.
In Mac Os one can use spotlight with cmd + space with similar results.
Or sometimes I check a calculator I implemented myself (shameless plug: https://getcalculator.app/)
In Mac Os one can use spotlight with cmd + space with similar results.
Or sometimes I check a calculator I implemented myself (shameless plug: https://getcalculator.app/)
I mean, you can do Win+R and then "calc" on windows too, but that's still context switching and having to remember it's there.
Once again, compared to it just being there in front of you and ready to go that's still work to do to get it there.
Once again, compared to it just being there in front of you and ready to go that's still work to do to get it there.
On my mac I just use the built in calculator in spotlight. So cmd+space opens the spotlight search widget and then I can just type in whatever I need calculated. Not sure if something like this is built into Windows? More often than not I use Google as my calculator when on Windows.
I use Raycast for the same, but does that do multiple calculations? Ie. 184 + 64 then multiplied by 4, etc.
You can do it all as one big expression with parentheses and such but if you're doing a bunch of calculations on the go that could get repetitive, and one wrong Esc and your calculation goes away.
You can do it all as one big expression with parentheses and such but if you're doing a bunch of calculations on the go that could get repetitive, and one wrong Esc and your calculation goes away.
> Widgets would be a potential solution but they keep being tried and abandoned soon after in desktop OSes.
There's still a calculator widget for the MacOS notification center. It's accessed in any app through a trackpad gesture or by clicking on the date/time in the menu bar.
There's still a calculator widget for the MacOS notification center. It's accessed in any app through a trackpad gesture or by clicking on the date/time in the menu bar.
For now. This is what, the third iteration of widgets on Mac?
The fact that it seems to be similar enough to the iOS implementation of them gives me hope, but only barely.
You also need to know the feature exists (they had notifications before widgets, people might not know it was updated to support them), that there exists a calculator widget, and to add it before you need to use it. That's the same discoverabiloty problem, with the added wrinkle that functionality changed in Monterey.
The fact that it seems to be similar enough to the iOS implementation of them gives me hope, but only barely.
You also need to know the feature exists (they had notifications before widgets, people might not know it was updated to support them), that there exists a calculator widget, and to add it before you need to use it. That's the same discoverabiloty problem, with the added wrinkle that functionality changed in Monterey.
> For now.
For most of the past decade. I believe widgets were added to Notification center in 2014.
For most of the past decade. I believe widgets were added to Notification center in 2014.
High Sierra widgets are the second implementation I mentioned.
Dashboard was first, and then they were reimagined as iOS-style in Monterey.
Dashboard was first, and then they were reimagined as iOS-style in Monterey.
I don't give a fuck about Bing, frankly, but ChatGPT (the actual first mover here) has already replaced a lot of what I used Google for during a work day.
I'll be their paying customer soon. It would be great if that meant I had privacy as well, but I kinda bleakly realize that that might be a bit of a pipe dream.
I'll be their paying customer soon. It would be great if that meant I had privacy as well, but I kinda bleakly realize that that might be a bit of a pipe dream.
Over the past 2 weeks I’ve barely used Google. I just ask ChatGPT. The results it produces are just superior to Google in every way.
The big improvement in the chatgpt integrated by bing is that it can take today's search results into the chat to analyze seamlessly (after all, Bing already has all the search results cached internally). ChatGPT as it stands has old knowledge only unless you paste in the results you want to analyze.
The comment you replied to makes no mentions of timelines, and everything they said applies up to the point the first mover falls, which is clearly not the long term per your own argument.
The goal posts also aren't "search" they're "AI enhanced search", let's not muddy the waters by moving them. Google may certainly be dominating in search, but they are clearly trying to sprint from miles behind in the latter.
The goal posts also aren't "search" they're "AI enhanced search", let's not muddy the waters by moving them. Google may certainly be dominating in search, but they are clearly trying to sprint from miles behind in the latter.
[deleted]
If I were the EU, I would perhaps consider slapping restrictions on Google's Chat AI (say, Bard) as being a separate field (AI-Assisted Search) being propped up by a monopoly in Standard Search. That would hurt Google's dominance quicker than any other action. Same for the DOJ.
Remember how much trouble Microsoft got into for having a basic monopoly on desktops with Windows, and trying to bundle Internet Explorer? Replace Windows with Standard Google, and Internet Explorer with AI-based Google Search. You'll cut Google off at the knees with that move. And even if they survive the ~4-5 years litigation, they'll be severely hampered, kind of like how Microsoft was with the mobile phone market.
Remember how much trouble Microsoft got into for having a basic monopoly on desktops with Windows, and trying to bundle Internet Explorer? Replace Windows with Standard Google, and Internet Explorer with AI-based Google Search. You'll cut Google off at the knees with that move. And even if they survive the ~4-5 years litigation, they'll be severely hampered, kind of like how Microsoft was with the mobile phone market.
Bing isn't dominating anything haha.
I mean, they certainly are in the "AI integrated search" field, considering.... You know.... This entire post and discussion happening.
Google isn't going to suffer severe business consequences for (temporarily) losing dominance in the "AI integrated search" field, because the revenue from that field is effectively NaN compared to Google's current revenue. They might hypothetically suffer if AI integrated search grows to become a major fraction of the existing Search revenue and Google fails to deploy their massive existing ML/AI resources to match Bing/OpenAI's unpatented, non-secret and easily-replicated techniques. And big firms have made such strategic errors in the past! But none of that is going to happen in the short term.
Please show me exactly where I said otherwise.
Read the comment thread you just replied to and tell me how any of what you just said is relevant to me correcting the sentence "Bing isn't dominating anything haha."
Read the comment thread you just replied to and tell me how any of what you just said is relevant to me correcting the sentence "Bing isn't dominating anything haha."
You said they are dominating "AI search" but that's wrong in many ways:
- Google's entire search engine has had many layers of "AI" powering it for years.
- Bing hasn't even released this supposed AI search engine to the public.
Your other example was Tesla and the two examples couldn't be more different. Your statement would be like someone saying Tesla was "dominating" electric cars before they ever even sold a single Roadster and had just posted a demo video. It's just wrong. I can be first to market with a banana that glows in the dark, am I in the club now too?
They may dominate if this exact form of conversational answers proves popular and if launched more than a hacked together demo and only then is some strong claim they are doing anything interesting could be worthwhile.
Until then they are kind-of first-but-actually-not-really in a kind-of-theoretical-market, and not dominating it all or reaping any first-mover advantage given their opponents are ready to follow on immediately.
- Google's entire search engine has had many layers of "AI" powering it for years.
- Bing hasn't even released this supposed AI search engine to the public.
Your other example was Tesla and the two examples couldn't be more different. Your statement would be like someone saying Tesla was "dominating" electric cars before they ever even sold a single Roadster and had just posted a demo video. It's just wrong. I can be first to market with a banana that glows in the dark, am I in the club now too?
They may dominate if this exact form of conversational answers proves popular and if launched more than a hacked together demo and only then is some strong claim they are doing anything interesting could be worthwhile.
Until then they are kind-of first-but-actually-not-really in a kind-of-theoretical-market, and not dominating it all or reaping any first-mover advantage given their opponents are ready to follow on immediately.
Just because Google uses AI for things like ranking does not put them in the same category as a search engine with AI integrated. I hope you realize that. There's a clear differentiator at play with Bard and New Bing, and that's the space people are talking about.
The market exists. Products have been announced. Some are clearly more popular than others. I don't know why you care so much that Google beats Bing, but it's plainly obvious both from people's and Google's own reactions that Bing is currently considered the winner in the space.
Will it last? Maybe. Maybe not. The very thread you are replying to is that first movers ultimately fail. But it's plainly clear Bing has captured the first mover advantage in the space, whether you like it or not.
The market exists. Products have been announced. Some are clearly more popular than others. I don't know why you care so much that Google beats Bing, but it's plainly obvious both from people's and Google's own reactions that Bing is currently considered the winner in the space.
Will it last? Maybe. Maybe not. The very thread you are replying to is that first movers ultimately fail. But it's plainly clear Bing has captured the first mover advantage in the space, whether you like it or not.
No one hates Google more than me trust, check the comment history. Meanwhile you're stanning for something that has 0% market penetration that is essentially massively PR'ed product announcement with no market fit (not even released), and that already has competitors following easily within months (that are likely better) is some sort of first-mover advantage even comparable to what Tesla had.
Good point. It's also dominating in the segment of "web search companies called Bing".
On the topic of big companies making strategic errors, it's not entirely unthinkable that if AI generates a lot of hype, Google would throw away its market-dominating search engine and replace it with some AI chatbot-thing without market dominance.
It could very well be that even a small chance of this happening can cause Microsoft to go all in on making Bing more AI. Being very expensive is the point.
See also: Star Wars, Itanium.
It could very well be that even a small chance of this happening can cause Microsoft to go all in on making Bing more AI. Being very expensive is the point.
See also: Star Wars, Itanium.
Bing's image search is better than google's. Hands down. While this has been popularized for ...ehem...nsfw reasons, it's also very useful to find charts and visualizations related to a particular topic. As an example, I was searching for charts that showed laptop vs desktop market share, and bam! There's the latest projections.
Tangent: I wonder if Bing has an advantage in that most people perform SEO for Google; so long as Bing has different algos it may be “immune” to Google-focused seo?
It will be interesting to see how the next few years play out in the EV space. Tesla suddenly has actual competition that is very good. Arguably better, aside from that nagging little detail -- the charger network. Tesla needs to keep throwing money at the Supercharger network and do whatever they can to keep it exclusive. Anything that puts the competition on an equal playing field for fast charging would be devastating to Tesla's market share.
Yes, I'm quite excited to see the new EVs coming out in the next few years. Still like my Tesla but the list of grievances grows over time.
I think they'll ultimately have to open up the charging to get federal funding, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when they do. It's definitely a massive advantage right now.
I think they'll ultimately have to open up the charging to get federal funding, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when they do. It's definitely a massive advantage right now.
I think the charging network is going to prove to be the iMessage of Tesla. By keeping it closed, they will be selling many more cars. In Europe where they had to use the standard port and open the network, there will be much stiffer competition.
That happened 4 years ago, and Tesla has done nothing but increase sales in Europe since then. I'm sure this will change as traditional car manufacturers improve their EV lineups. Europe in general also has a lot more options for the EV charging market so I don't think the SuC network is as pronounced there.
The Model Y was the top selling model in Europe in December 2022. EV or ICE. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2022/12/07/model-y--...
It will probably make a bigger impact in the US. And the switch to a standard interface is holding up billions in federal funding so Tesla will probably eventually take the hit.
The Model Y was the top selling model in Europe in December 2022. EV or ICE. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2022/12/07/model-y--...
It will probably make a bigger impact in the US. And the switch to a standard interface is holding up billions in federal funding so Tesla will probably eventually take the hit.
It's unlikely Tesla's market share of the total car market is going to go down no matter how well other companies do. What we're seeing is a general shift towards electric cars, which is only a good thing for Tesla.
Yes, in this case when I say 'market share' I mean EV market share.
My point is more that you used the word "devastating" when there's nothing negative happening to Tesla in that situation
Telsa is a very good exemple because they just about got beaten off in every category (except maybe the driver assistance features).
If you want a cheaper car with a smaller range than the model 3, but still decent, you can look at Volkswagen, Renault, Peugeot, Kia and Hyundai.
If you want higher range (and premium/luxury feel) you can look at BMW/Audi/Mercedes.
And pretty much all of them have better QC and a vaster maintenance network than Tesla (and in the E.U the charging network all use the same type of connector, so you are not tied to the manufacturer of your car).
But still, whenever you talk electric car, people often talk first about Tesla and they have no problem selling them. This might mostly be true in the E.U though. Also the model 3 is still priced fairly well being in-between the higher-end of the market and the intermediate.
And pretty much all of them have better QC and a vaster maintenance network than Tesla (and in the E.U the charging network all use the same type of connector, so you are not tied to the manufacturer of your car).
But still, whenever you talk electric car, people often talk first about Tesla and they have no problem selling them. This might mostly be true in the E.U though. Also the model 3 is still priced fairly well being in-between the higher-end of the market and the intermediate.
Tesla wasn't a first mover. Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt were both on the market roughtly 2 years before Model S.
Also, you don't really need to beat Tesla if you just want to make (and sell) electric cars. Tesla doesn't fill every niche and is nowhere near enough in terms of volume to satisfy the EV demand.
(If you want to be a bigger electric car company than Tesla then you have to beat Tesla, yeah -- that's a tautology, not an interesting observation tho).
Also, you don't really need to beat Tesla if you just want to make (and sell) electric cars. Tesla doesn't fill every niche and is nowhere near enough in terms of volume to satisfy the EV demand.
(If you want to be a bigger electric car company than Tesla then you have to beat Tesla, yeah -- that's a tautology, not an interesting observation tho).
I think second mover has a better chance to succeed, even from the first mover themselves (Apple had many ideas for touchscreen devices but most flopped until the 2000s). Iteration on a good enough device or platform will always give you more success than iterating on a false premise (ex. the metaverse).
Car manufacturer don't have to beat Tesla because it's not "winner takes all" market. Not good analogy.
Or you need a big differentiator which makes you the new first mover.
You don't even always need a big differentiator. We got rid of our Tesla sacrificing range to have normal vehicle controls. Some times tech just gets good enough that being the first mover can't beat the entrenched players inevitability and willingness to give customers what they ask for instead of insisting you will like something you never asked for, even after you try it and tell them you don't like the thing they insist you will like. Tesla has gone all in on things like touch screens and non-standard controls and it has literally lost them our business twice. I would have bought a Model S Plaid if it just had a normal steering wheel. No questions asked. And my partner would have kept her Model 3 if it didn't have such annoying vehicle controls for certain things. Little stuff really matters and Tesla sticks their head in the sand over it while Audi will happily make you a pretty normal SUV that happens to be zippy and electric.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm convinced it's the opposite... I think in 5 years we'll look back and wonder why it wasn't more obvious to everyone. I think in 5 years, almost every single company that exists now will look radically different due to what we're starting to see now.
The other weird thing is, if someone is looking to have an edge in these sorts of things for their business, they should replace the AI helpdesks and automated emails with real, well-trained and friendly humans who will be an instant improvement, surefire hit with their customers, and cheaper on the R&D side to boot. But Google, and other companies, are spending huge amounts on bots that answer questions incorrectly, while leaving their customers without anyone to contact for critical customer support functions. We live in a weird time.
Oh, I see you've been on the receiving end of Google's poor support. It's almost as if the company is more concerned with investing in flashy AI and machine learning technologies than actually providing decent customer service. Sure, they might argue that these investments will pay off in the long term by creating a more efficient support system, but let's be real - if they can't even handle basic support requests now, what makes them think they'll be able to magically fix everything with a bunch of fancy algorithms? It's time for Google to stop ignoring their customers in favor of their shiny new toys.
*written by chatgpt
*written by chatgpt
If quality of support would raise the bottom line, support wouldn’t be so bad in everything mass market related. Unfortunately, AI will be the cheaper option to maintain a semblance of support.
The problem is that Google makes enough money from ad business that they don't care that they may be losing out on more revenue/profits by having better support. This fundamental belief is one reason Google has a hard time making inroads in the enterprise market. In that market, support absolutely matters and the perception that Google doesn't care about it makes it easier to exclude Google altogether when considering a cloud platform or office productivity suite.
What prevents good support is scale. For example, Microsoft is very entrenched in the enterprise space, yet support is quite lacking (unless you are a very large customer, maybe).
Microsoft's demo wasn't perfect but everyone worth listening to has been saying ChatGPT is fallible this whole time. It was well within expectations.
Google however came in with a different expectation. I remember something about one of their execs disparaging OpenAI over inaccuracies before. If you are going to sling mud, you had better make sure you don't have the same problem. Or it makes you look like a fool.
Google however came in with a different expectation. I remember something about one of their execs disparaging OpenAI over inaccuracies before. If you are going to sling mud, you had better make sure you don't have the same problem. Or it makes you look like a fool.
Nope. I am somewhat in disbelief about the level people here downgrade the recent Bing upgrade. The chatbot feature is a such a time saver for jobs where you need to write tons of abstract surface-level content. Just yesterday, I tried compiling a monthly teachers working plan for some local school in Ukrainian language. What it spawned in a minute was at least a day of typing work for a human. This is especially useful when you don’t know the formal language. And the quality of this was good enough for bootstrapping.
At this point, we don't know how useful it will turn out to be. While we are trading anecdotes, here's mine. I asked chatGPT who the Exec team of a medium sized company I knew, was. It confidently stated seven names. Turns out three of them it categorized under a different title and another three never even worked at the company! I would hardly call this a bootstrappble result.
In your example, if I told that at random about 30% of the results were made up, you would not consider that a time saver. In fact it would be total time waster since you would have to vet every single entry. People think since 70% is accurate, only 30% work is needed but not if you don't know which 30% is bogus. You would need to check the entire work using conventional means including perhaps a 'regular' search engine.
In your example, if I told that at random about 30% of the results were made up, you would not consider that a time saver. In fact it would be total time waster since you would have to vet every single entry. People think since 70% is accurate, only 30% work is needed but not if you don't know which 30% is bogus. You would need to check the entire work using conventional means including perhaps a 'regular' search engine.
You’re not using it right. LLM fundamentally don’t know s*t about this company’s exec team. Maybe some names are statistically close to the company name in vector-space but no guarantee (as you discovered).
The LLM won’t revolutionize search as it is today for factual queries. They’re Clippy 2.0. It’s great people are finding use for the models, but I wish this search story would be balanced out a bit.
I was laid off recently, and I’m using the LLM to write a bunch of cover letters. I give it my resume, a blurb about the company and job and a bit about what I like about work, and it outputs a cover letter. I don’t like writing BS cover letters where I pretend I majored in the company mission and my whole life has been teaching me their values. GPT can do that for me though- and yes I fact check but I’m fact checking against my resume and personal opinions which I obviously know quite well.
The LLM won’t revolutionize search as it is today for factual queries. They’re Clippy 2.0. It’s great people are finding use for the models, but I wish this search story would be balanced out a bit.
I was laid off recently, and I’m using the LLM to write a bunch of cover letters. I give it my resume, a blurb about the company and job and a bit about what I like about work, and it outputs a cover letter. I don’t like writing BS cover letters where I pretend I majored in the company mission and my whole life has been teaching me their values. GPT can do that for me though- and yes I fact check but I’m fact checking against my resume and personal opinions which I obviously know quite well.
But the whole point of these debates is a discussion about whether Bing is going to eat Google's lunch in search, which very much is about finding out about things like companies' exec teams.
The ability of an LLM to generate decent content (provided you're an attentive editor or the users of the content aren't too discerning) could be huge for Office365, but that's irrelevant to any potential threat to Google, since Docs is of very little importance to Google's revenues and strategy in a market where Office is completely dominant and has always had a more full-featured product.
The ability of an LLM to generate decent content (provided you're an attentive editor or the users of the content aren't too discerning) could be huge for Office365, but that's irrelevant to any potential threat to Google, since Docs is of very little importance to Google's revenues and strategy in a market where Office is completely dominant and has always had a more full-featured product.
> But the whole point ... is ... in _search_ (not content generation)
True. And also, keep in mind ... it doesn't truly have to be _better_ than Google search. You just need to start and maintain a _social trend_ so that the mainstream public _chooses_ it over Google. People use Google because it's the first and only option that comes to mind -- they haven't actually compared its accuracy to anything else in a long time (the audience of Hacker News is of course an exception).
True. And also, keep in mind ... it doesn't truly have to be _better_ than Google search. You just need to start and maintain a _social trend_ so that the mainstream public _chooses_ it over Google. People use Google because it's the first and only option that comes to mind -- they haven't actually compared its accuracy to anything else in a long time (the audience of Hacker News is of course an exception).
> whether Bing is going to eat Google's lunch in search,
There are a few types of search queries that people seem to do, factual lookups ("who is the exec of abc?"), but also generally treat the search engine as the entryway to the internet ("I need a teaching plan about Ukraine"). We'll see that LLM fall flat for facts (assuming people care), but they can supplant some of the general traffic. Realistically, its a bad fact search replacement, but it could be a great tool to put next to a search bar, making a better "starting place for accessing the internet".
With the teaching plan example, the original user was probably going to make a query for a template (or 5), then copy+paste, then do 10-100 queries learning all about Ukraine history and culture, then rewrite that into the template, editing down to manageable size, then send to peers to edit and review, then format for distribution. That could be dozens of Google searches. Now, one or two AI queries, and they have a template, basic written text, and can focus on a couple queries for fact checking. Oh, and since they used bing to do the AI part, they may just stick with bing for the fact check part. Google was irrelevant in that whole flow instead of getting dozens of queries over a day before, but if that feature was moved to Office365, then they may never have used bing for search while still killing a chunk of google's traffic.
The danger to google is not equal to the opportunity to bing. If 5-10% of traffic never reaches a google search, that's a huge chunk of google's revenue, even if it doesn't translate to searches on a different engine. Think of the potential impact an AI code generator could have on StackOverflow. When I need to pick up a new language, I often query "how to append to an array in python" in a search engine, but a LLM (or large-code-model) built into my IDE could supplant that query entirely. I
There are a few types of search queries that people seem to do, factual lookups ("who is the exec of abc?"), but also generally treat the search engine as the entryway to the internet ("I need a teaching plan about Ukraine"). We'll see that LLM fall flat for facts (assuming people care), but they can supplant some of the general traffic. Realistically, its a bad fact search replacement, but it could be a great tool to put next to a search bar, making a better "starting place for accessing the internet".
With the teaching plan example, the original user was probably going to make a query for a template (or 5), then copy+paste, then do 10-100 queries learning all about Ukraine history and culture, then rewrite that into the template, editing down to manageable size, then send to peers to edit and review, then format for distribution. That could be dozens of Google searches. Now, one or two AI queries, and they have a template, basic written text, and can focus on a couple queries for fact checking. Oh, and since they used bing to do the AI part, they may just stick with bing for the fact check part. Google was irrelevant in that whole flow instead of getting dozens of queries over a day before, but if that feature was moved to Office365, then they may never have used bing for search while still killing a chunk of google's traffic.
The danger to google is not equal to the opportunity to bing. If 5-10% of traffic never reaches a google search, that's a huge chunk of google's revenue, even if it doesn't translate to searches on a different engine. Think of the potential impact an AI code generator could have on StackOverflow. When I need to pick up a new language, I often query "how to append to an array in python" in a search engine, but a LLM (or large-code-model) built into my IDE could supplant that query entirely. I
An analogue of Jevons' law applies here.
I doubt you hand wrote cover letters by making dozens of search queries (similarly, I doubt people devise teaching curricula by learning the history of Ukraine through a series of Google queries). But when you weren't taking the time to write them yourself, I bet you had more time free to search for jobs, or do general internet browsing using Google as your gateway to the internet...
People having more time free to browse the internet is unlikely to be a threat to Google's business, even in the highly unlikely scenario Google is incapable of advancing its existing AI products beyond their current state
I doubt you hand wrote cover letters by making dozens of search queries (similarly, I doubt people devise teaching curricula by learning the history of Ukraine through a series of Google queries). But when you weren't taking the time to write them yourself, I bet you had more time free to search for jobs, or do general internet browsing using Google as your gateway to the internet...
People having more time free to browse the internet is unlikely to be a threat to Google's business, even in the highly unlikely scenario Google is incapable of advancing its existing AI products beyond their current state
I think of these tools as "first draft writers". You can't rely on OpenAI's GPT models to do your research for you or replace knowledge of a particular domain, but they significantly accelerate the initial content drafting process. Then you edit and fact-check and adapt, as you would anyway, but you've cut out much of the time-consuming grind of getting words on the page.
There is something that I find deeply unsatisfying about this. For me, the first draft is as much about working through the problems space and considering possibilities. If I rely on a chat bot, then I am more apt to become anchored to whatever the chat bot spits back out at me. Even if what it produces is good enough, I do not benefit from the drafting process in the way that I would if I did it myself. Sometimes maybe this is a good enough shortcut but I generally don't believe in shortcuts.
Actually it works not as the first draft, or the final draft - it is the middle draft. In stage one you just drop a bunch of bullet points, ideas, short notes. In stage 2 the model writes your article or paper. In stage 3 you fix it.
Almost 100% next iteration will sport a fact checker, powerful style and format controls, and a much larger context. The development of advanced fact checkers will have a big impact on anything propagated online.
Almost 100% next iteration will sport a fact checker, powerful style and format controls, and a much larger context. The development of advanced fact checkers will have a big impact on anything propagated online.
[deleted]
It's more like a pre-draft from what I've seen. But for an area I know, I can absolutely see something like ChatGPT throwing 500 words down on some topic and generating some explanatory boilerplate about something like what a service mesh is. I'll take out some things that I don't quite agree with, give it more of a "voice," maybe add some data/quotes/links/etc.
It's not going to write me something I'll hand to an editor. But for certain things, it could definitely give me a head start relative to a blank sheet of paper.
It's not going to write me something I'll hand to an editor. But for certain things, it could definitely give me a head start relative to a blank sheet of paper.
first draft does set the direction
In my experience a domain expert (myself in my domain) can quickly validate the answers. It can make a multi-hour task a multi-minute task.
I also got false positives when I asked for facts. This is what classical search is for. But what chat feature in Bing is — a context aware coherent text generation machine with an amazing online feature to modify and bend its content to your wishes. Its also not bad at summarizing articles. But hey, if this is just the beginning I bet in a couple of years it will match your standards as well.
with lang-chain and tooling, these problems will likely quickly shrink.
imagine where we'll be just two papers down the line!
imagine where we'll be just two papers down the line!
Everyone in this thread replying to npalli gets it. I am getting more and more skilled in using it everyday. I feel like I have a third lobe of my brain.
There are largely three groups of people
1) ChatWhat?
2) It only makes bullshit!
3) OMG, this amazing, and scary and amazing, and useful. Oh wow...
There are largely three groups of people
1) ChatWhat?
2) It only makes bullshit!
3) OMG, this amazing, and scary and amazing, and useful. Oh wow...
I think there's also a pretty big group of us who find that it is today a moderately useful tool for certain types of things but isn't really transformative in general.
You’re not using ChatGPT correctly.
As the saying goes, you’re holding it wrong.
In the context of replacing a search engine, it is the correct use.
"abstract surface-level content"
aka "bullshit"
aka "bullshit"
Bullshit to you but full time work for plenty...
Well, they think they will be paid 10 times more now that they can produce bullshit 10x faster ... in reality, they will be fired.
> Well, they think they will be paid 10 times more now that they can produce bullshit 10x faster … in reality, they will be fired.
…and replaced by b.s. chatbot wranglers, who will be paid much more, and who will produce more total output, and who will be selected preferentially from among the people that best understand the work the chatbots are doing…so, yeah, in lots of cases, the people that were writing bullshit will end up wrangling chatbots, in jobs that bring in more money for their employer, and probably at higher pay (though, by historical trends of automation, a lower share of the generated value) who write bullshit.
This is even more clearly the case for people who have writing bullshit as an incidental part of their job rather than a core part, since the incidental part will consume less time, increasing productivity, without eliminating need for the core job. So its not even a “lose one job but move to the replacement job” situation, its just a “be more valuable in existing job”.
…and replaced by b.s. chatbot wranglers, who will be paid much more, and who will produce more total output, and who will be selected preferentially from among the people that best understand the work the chatbots are doing…so, yeah, in lots of cases, the people that were writing bullshit will end up wrangling chatbots, in jobs that bring in more money for their employer, and probably at higher pay (though, by historical trends of automation, a lower share of the generated value) who write bullshit.
This is even more clearly the case for people who have writing bullshit as an incidental part of their job rather than a core part, since the incidental part will consume less time, increasing productivity, without eliminating need for the core job. So its not even a “lose one job but move to the replacement job” situation, its just a “be more valuable in existing job”.
Relative to what, the "high quality" content you'd spend more time dredging up on Google?
Maybe someone who admits to not knowing the Ukrainian language, shouldn't volunteer to create an entire teaching plan in that language, from a chatbot.
Fair, but the question isn’t whether it is useful but whether it will replace traditional search
It doesn't need to replace it though. If Bing has good chatgpt which is useful for some non-trivial amount of searches then people will go there instead of google and then also run all their other searches there as well.
It just needs to be useful enough to dislodge the google monopoly.
It just needs to be useful enough to dislodge the google monopoly.
If the search product still isn't good enough, why would a ChatGPT panel make the difference? You can always pull up ChatGPT in another tab.
Yes it will replace search.
The same way that cars replaced horses, and planes replaced zeppelins because they are had a significant speed advantage and allowed humans to spend time doing more productive activities that can't be automated.
Then traditional search is going to become "raw index search" that you can query writing something like "intitle:"carbonara" source:"google_index"" or "give me all webpages containing carbonara in its title"
Then traditional search is going to become "raw index search" that you can query writing something like "intitle:"carbonara" source:"google_index"" or "give me all webpages containing carbonara in its title"
And how Google Glass replaced smartphones, bitcoin replaced USD, Juicero replaced juicers, Segways replaced walking, and Second Life replaced life.
I think it is something to reconsider, especially if you genuinely don't perceive the difference of value between Juicero and a product that has been adopted by 100 million users in its first 2 months.
Really, you can believe me, outside Silicon Valley, nobody cares or cared about Juicero.
This is very different for ChatGPT, and I'm sure that if you get interested to it you'll find interesting usages with it that can fit your daily workflow (or just fun! like with image generation models).
Really, you can believe me, outside Silicon Valley, nobody cares or cared about Juicero.
This is very different for ChatGPT, and I'm sure that if you get interested to it you'll find interesting usages with it that can fit your daily workflow (or just fun! like with image generation models).
ChatGPT frenzy goes all the way to China. They are reacting with "huge excitement", but also realising how far behind they are.
I stopped considering ChatGPT to be niche/nerdy phenomenon after, less than two weeks after release, I overheard some random Polish commentary youtubers (the YouTube equivalent of mass market celebrity gossip, except more self-referential) showcasing the chatbot and voicing their opinions about large language models.
One useful thing I learned from this, though, is that ChatGPT can handle Polish just fine. It never even occurred to me to try it - I incorrectly assumed the model was trained on English text only. I suspect that being multilingual from day 1 was a huge factor in ChatGPT's sudden and extreme user growth.
One useful thing I learned from this, though, is that ChatGPT can handle Polish just fine. It never even occurred to me to try it - I incorrectly assumed the model was trained on English text only. I suspect that being multilingual from day 1 was a huge factor in ChatGPT's sudden and extreme user growth.
[deleted]
It all sounds good as a consumer but there are a few questions which are by no means clear to me:
* How does getting recommendations from a chatbot (what TV to buy) play with websites that produce such content (TV reviews) * How does it play with websites that rely on ad impression * How can you monetize a chatbot? (there's an easy way: free tier + monthly subscription) * How to reduce the massive compute cost of a good chatbot without making it bad (this also seems more straightforward)
* How does getting recommendations from a chatbot (what TV to buy) play with websites that produce such content (TV reviews) * How does it play with websites that rely on ad impression * How can you monetize a chatbot? (there's an easy way: free tier + monthly subscription) * How to reduce the massive compute cost of a good chatbot without making it bad (this also seems more straightforward)
Apparently Google is capable of doing cool things. DeepMind’s speculative sampling achieves 2–2.5x decoding speedups in LLM. That brings cost down significantly, without degradation in quality.
Yikes, I don't have access to bing chatbot but google translate for Ukrainian is not great compared to Polish or Russian. I would not rely on it for any work.
Did you try deepl? It has been blowing google translate out of the water for years now.
How is that possible? Google has the research power, the TPUs, the data, everything. But Translate is not as good as a tool made by a much smaller company.
This is also a pattern. Their voices are not better than some paid services (NaturalReader for example). Their OCR and document understanding is inferior to Amazon Textract. Even in speech recognition there is the excellent Whisper from OpenAI doing just as good or better. Google's generative image models are not the best, and locked away for good measure. I think SD and MJ rule.
Google's AI was cool in 2000 for search and in 2016 for games. But now the best people are leaving them - almost the whole team who invented transformers has their own startups.
I also think maybe, just maybe, their TPUs are bad and they can't scale high quality models to the public. Maybe they lost the race because GPUs were better in the end. Maybe it's stupid, but how can we explain the lack of advanced AI? The other explanation is they won't mess with something that makes them so much money (current search/ad model).
This is also a pattern. Their voices are not better than some paid services (NaturalReader for example). Their OCR and document understanding is inferior to Amazon Textract. Even in speech recognition there is the excellent Whisper from OpenAI doing just as good or better. Google's generative image models are not the best, and locked away for good measure. I think SD and MJ rule.
Google's AI was cool in 2000 for search and in 2016 for games. But now the best people are leaving them - almost the whole team who invented transformers has their own startups.
I also think maybe, just maybe, their TPUs are bad and they can't scale high quality models to the public. Maybe they lost the race because GPUs were better in the end. Maybe it's stupid, but how can we explain the lack of advanced AI? The other explanation is they won't mess with something that makes them so much money (current search/ad model).
I've found similar... it did a days work for me the other day in about 20 seconds.
But is this related to search? I'm a "pro ChatGPT" user (ie, I pay) and I don't use it for anything search related. It's entirely unrelated.
But is this related to search? I'm a "pro ChatGPT" user (ie, I pay) and I don't use it for anything search related. It's entirely unrelated.
That's really nice, but how will you monetize it? In its chat form, that's going to be very difficult. Anyone can train it and launch their own LLM, there's know monopoly or differentiator. Sure, its possible overtime it will uplift search engines, but create a new Industry vertical like Search, Mobile, Social Media, Cloud. I think of it more as a feature /augmentation than its own thing.
Services. Inevitably some of the queries involve recommending a service, and when you have two equal substitute services in a market, both will pay a certain price to be recommended over the other.
That's a very highfalutin way of saying "ads", which feels like it still has one foot planted squarely in the monetization thinking of yesterday. As lots of other people have pointed out, ads in the midst of a blob of chat output don't work the same way as they do on a page of search results. Search results are impersonal and so putting promoted content in them is less of a personal affront. But if the interface is a "chat session" with something that's designed to feel human-like in its responses, the interleaving of paid content produces a completely different psychological response in users. It's more insulting and undermines trust.
To put it another way: the main value proposition of using something like ChatGPT to navigate the internet is that you're putting your trust in it to filter out the noise on your behalf. If you can't trust it to actually do that (there's still ad noise in what you get back), then what's the point?
Either people will pay a subscription fee to unlock the utility of an information-distilling agent, or they won't. Trying to sidechain ad revenue into that equation is self-defeating.
To put it another way: the main value proposition of using something like ChatGPT to navigate the internet is that you're putting your trust in it to filter out the noise on your behalf. If you can't trust it to actually do that (there's still ad noise in what you get back), then what's the point?
Either people will pay a subscription fee to unlock the utility of an information-distilling agent, or they won't. Trying to sidechain ad revenue into that equation is self-defeating.
Search is ad-influenced already, but there's still signal under the noise.
Adding a chat front end is just going to lower the SNR, because ChatGPT has no idea what facts are or how to check them.
Unfortunately it's also the main attraction for corporate revenue generation. You can sell stuff conversationally. Woo hoo. These systems are going to turn into automated used car sales bots which use persuasion techniques to steer users towards a sale.
From the user POV the main attraction is the prospect of a kind of universal summarising WikiBot and bureaucratic paperwork automator.
Those are fundamentally different domains.
Users have been pretty relaxed about being manipulated and distracted by social media and covert PR/sales/influencer operations, so there's going to be a huge market for the bad stuff.
But it's just corporate noise, as it always is. The real value will come from processed search in the sense of automated teaching and intelligence augmentation.
Unfortunately there's not where most of the research will go. It's not going to become common until LLMs are taught to fact check with high reliability, and the cost of entry is low enough for that to be offered as a service.
Meanwhile - yes, exactly: ads disguised as search results.
Adding a chat front end is just going to lower the SNR, because ChatGPT has no idea what facts are or how to check them.
Unfortunately it's also the main attraction for corporate revenue generation. You can sell stuff conversationally. Woo hoo. These systems are going to turn into automated used car sales bots which use persuasion techniques to steer users towards a sale.
From the user POV the main attraction is the prospect of a kind of universal summarising WikiBot and bureaucratic paperwork automator.
Those are fundamentally different domains.
Users have been pretty relaxed about being manipulated and distracted by social media and covert PR/sales/influencer operations, so there's going to be a huge market for the bad stuff.
But it's just corporate noise, as it always is. The real value will come from processed search in the sense of automated teaching and intelligence augmentation.
Unfortunately there's not where most of the research will go. It's not going to become common until LLMs are taught to fact check with high reliability, and the cost of entry is low enough for that to be offered as a service.
Meanwhile - yes, exactly: ads disguised as search results.
>Either people will pay a subscription fee to unlock the utility of an information-distilling agent, or they won't.
This feels a bit like projection though. People in general are trained to tolerate ads for most freemium services, such as social media, search, etc., and chat is no different.
For any market involving human attention, there's a portion willing to pay money for the service, but a significant larger portion willing to trade attention time (e.g. ad impressions) for a free service instead.
This feels a bit like projection though. People in general are trained to tolerate ads for most freemium services, such as social media, search, etc., and chat is no different.
For any market involving human attention, there's a portion willing to pay money for the service, but a significant larger portion willing to trade attention time (e.g. ad impressions) for a free service instead.
> the main value proposition of using something like ChatGPT to navigate the internet is that you're putting your trust in it to filter out the noise on your behalf.
Right. That's a transient state, unfortunately - we can trust ChatGPT now because we know OpenAI had neither the time nor resources nor a reason to make their tool biased for commercial purposes (they're busy biasing and constraining it so it doesn't generate too much bad press, but this doesn't affect the trustworthiness of responses to typical queries). A model like this obviously won't be allowed to gain widespread adoption as a search proxy - it's destructive to commercial interests.
> If you can't trust it to actually do that (there's still ad noise in what you get back), then what's the point?
Exactly. The problem is, as users, we have no say in it. If Microsoft and Google decide that conversational interfaces are the future, then we'll be doing searches via ChatGPT-derived sales bots. End of story. Google and Microsoft each have enough clout to unilaterally change how computing works for everyone. And if they both decide to compete on quality of their ML search chatbots, there's no force on Earth that could stop it. Short to mid term, if they want it, we have no choice but to use it (long-term this might create an opening for a competitor to claw back some of the search market with a chatbot-free experience).
> Either people will pay a subscription fee to unlock the utility of an information-distilling agent, or they won't. Trying to sidechain ad revenue into that equation is self-defeating.
This, unfortunately, has been proven false again and again. Newspapers. Radio. Broadcast TV. Cable TV. Music streaming. Video streaming. On-line news and article publishing. And so on.
Advertising is a disease, a cancer that infects and slowly consumes every medium and form of communication we create. Often enough, creation of a new medium is driven by the desire for an alternative, after the old medium became thoroughly consumed by advertising and seems to be reaching terminal stage.
Side-chaining ads into a chatbot interface is going to be even more powerful than ads in normal search results - not only you can tweak the order of recommendations like search engines do today, you can also tweak the tone and language used in the conversational aspects, effectively turning the bot into a sneaky salesman.
Right. That's a transient state, unfortunately - we can trust ChatGPT now because we know OpenAI had neither the time nor resources nor a reason to make their tool biased for commercial purposes (they're busy biasing and constraining it so it doesn't generate too much bad press, but this doesn't affect the trustworthiness of responses to typical queries). A model like this obviously won't be allowed to gain widespread adoption as a search proxy - it's destructive to commercial interests.
> If you can't trust it to actually do that (there's still ad noise in what you get back), then what's the point?
Exactly. The problem is, as users, we have no say in it. If Microsoft and Google decide that conversational interfaces are the future, then we'll be doing searches via ChatGPT-derived sales bots. End of story. Google and Microsoft each have enough clout to unilaterally change how computing works for everyone. And if they both decide to compete on quality of their ML search chatbots, there's no force on Earth that could stop it. Short to mid term, if they want it, we have no choice but to use it (long-term this might create an opening for a competitor to claw back some of the search market with a chatbot-free experience).
> Either people will pay a subscription fee to unlock the utility of an information-distilling agent, or they won't. Trying to sidechain ad revenue into that equation is self-defeating.
This, unfortunately, has been proven false again and again. Newspapers. Radio. Broadcast TV. Cable TV. Music streaming. Video streaming. On-line news and article publishing. And so on.
Advertising is a disease, a cancer that infects and slowly consumes every medium and form of communication we create. Often enough, creation of a new medium is driven by the desire for an alternative, after the old medium became thoroughly consumed by advertising and seems to be reaching terminal stage.
Side-chaining ads into a chatbot interface is going to be even more powerful than ads in normal search results - not only you can tweak the order of recommendations like search engines do today, you can also tweak the tone and language used in the conversational aspects, effectively turning the bot into a sneaky salesman.
Agreed. The level of naysaying on Bing + GPT (along with ChatGPT) is absurd.
Is this materially better than standard "fill in the blank" boilerplate? I would guess it is in terms of variety, but in content?
Microsoft can botch their search without tanking the company. Google cannot.
Sure, but the narrative seems to be Microsoft has somehow cracked the puzzle and will leave Google behind which is not the case currently.
Bingo. Microsoft isn't likely to win the search battle against Google. However, they can (and seemingly already have) disrupted search as a go-to web destination/feature.
Google was worried Facebook would disrupt their Adwords dominance by having social ads.
ChatGPT, if successful (a large IF), will disrupt search and probably a dozen other business models.
I'm awaiting the true counterstrike from Google, not this initial flub.
Google was worried Facebook would disrupt their Adwords dominance by having social ads.
ChatGPT, if successful (a large IF), will disrupt search and probably a dozen other business models.
I'm awaiting the true counterstrike from Google, not this initial flub.
> I'm awaiting the true counterstrike from Google, not this initial flub.
What if this was the best shot?
What if this was the best shot?
Adtech is their main business. The quality of search suggests that it became less important to them.
Lower quality of search mean more ad clicks. I believe the quality decrease is on purpose.
The companies that can afford to pay for top billing in search results are also the ones that rank in the first or second places for 'organic' results.
Maybe Google simply can't squeeze these customers any further than they already are, but at the same time can't turn back the clock to a time when SEO optimization didn't really exist.
Maybe Google simply can't squeeze these customers any further than they already are, but at the same time can't turn back the clock to a time when SEO optimization didn't really exist.
> When we look back in 3 months we will wonder why we thought LLM/GPT type queries will replace search in all forms.
It's not just blind optimism for the future of AI. We need search to be better because it's a cesspool of SEO spam/content farms and AI generated garbage. Search engines have declined in effectiveness and utility. We've lost even basic functionality like the consistent ability say "-whatever" to filter out garbage. Google, even DDG, have really dropped the ball here.
We're left looking for a savior and suddenly AI comes in and promises to be able to tell us whatever we need to know, it hints at a near future where AI is trained to see the spam and bring actual content to the top of search results again. We're so over dealing with the mess Google has made of their once awesome search engine that for a brief moment the entire internet was excited about fucking Bing!
I have to admit, I'm disappointed that it doesn't appear that Sydney will be the hero we need, but these are still early days and I hope all the attention leads to advancement in our understanding of AI and that fear of competition gets these companies to put a little more effort into improving the search engines they have now.
It's not just blind optimism for the future of AI. We need search to be better because it's a cesspool of SEO spam/content farms and AI generated garbage. Search engines have declined in effectiveness and utility. We've lost even basic functionality like the consistent ability say "-whatever" to filter out garbage. Google, even DDG, have really dropped the ball here.
We're left looking for a savior and suddenly AI comes in and promises to be able to tell us whatever we need to know, it hints at a near future where AI is trained to see the spam and bring actual content to the top of search results again. We're so over dealing with the mess Google has made of their once awesome search engine that for a brief moment the entire internet was excited about fucking Bing!
I have to admit, I'm disappointed that it doesn't appear that Sydney will be the hero we need, but these are still early days and I hope all the attention leads to advancement in our understanding of AI and that fear of competition gets these companies to put a little more effort into improving the search engines they have now.
Google obviously is facing headwinds as the open web, and thus web search, has been slowly dying over time. Because they are milking it the whole way down, they aren't very clear (to be generous) about what their go-forward strategy is (or if it exists).
But the bigger thing is that Satya Nadella also has the "it" factor - he has a way of communicating effectively. Even when Microsoft is fucking you over for the last few years, they come out smelling like roses. Sundar doesn't have that gravity and gets overshadowed in public by the Google Cloud guy.
The markets hate the perception of weakness and punish it. Microsoft is taking Bing, a joke product, and it's repackaging of Chrome and pushing it from a place of strength. No different than stitching a bunch of random shit together created Teams, which made Slack instantly irrelevant and was the equivalent of flipping the bird at Google. They're dangerous to Google because of that.
But the bigger thing is that Satya Nadella also has the "it" factor - he has a way of communicating effectively. Even when Microsoft is fucking you over for the last few years, they come out smelling like roses. Sundar doesn't have that gravity and gets overshadowed in public by the Google Cloud guy.
The markets hate the perception of weakness and punish it. Microsoft is taking Bing, a joke product, and it's repackaging of Chrome and pushing it from a place of strength. No different than stitching a bunch of random shit together created Teams, which made Slack instantly irrelevant and was the equivalent of flipping the bird at Google. They're dangerous to Google because of that.
The coming years of LLM/GPT hype and vaporware will be a good relief from the past years of blockchain hype and vaporware.
Seems like it’ll be more interesting anyway.
Seems like it’ll be more interesting anyway.
> When we look back in 3 months we will wonder why we thought LLM/GPT type queries will replace search in all forms.
I really hope so. LLM for search seems like a big leap right now. It isn't even really search but just a UI change for interacting with the underlying search engine. The caveats being that the people who actually think and create don't gain the clicks that they would get today (with the accompanying ad revenue) and there are no citations.
I really hope more companies realize that LLM for Wikimedia sites would be a vastly superior application of the technology. Could you imagine the impact this application would have given the sheer amount of knowledge and data that is on these sites? Learning and teaching would be changed from virtually the ground up. IMO, this is the killer app and not general search. Given the extreme verbosity and general un-readability of many technical pages on Wikipedia, a LLM that can summarize and answer questions correctly is a huge paradigm shift. Oh,don't know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is? Here you go. In whatever length of text you want. Want to know how this relates to Information Theory? Okay, here's a primer on that. The internet can once more become a place that people come to for learning rather than being fed total crap by an algorithm.
I do have to commend Satya Nadella though. He and Microsoft know exactly what they are doing. They know Google and Sundar Pichai are on the backfoot and they really are making them "dance". Bing + ChatGPT isn't really scalable right now. Riding the hype wave and putting pressure on Google hoping they make poor decisions based on short-minded thinking is the best thing they can do right now. Looks like it's working out well for them.
I really hope so. LLM for search seems like a big leap right now. It isn't even really search but just a UI change for interacting with the underlying search engine. The caveats being that the people who actually think and create don't gain the clicks that they would get today (with the accompanying ad revenue) and there are no citations.
I really hope more companies realize that LLM for Wikimedia sites would be a vastly superior application of the technology. Could you imagine the impact this application would have given the sheer amount of knowledge and data that is on these sites? Learning and teaching would be changed from virtually the ground up. IMO, this is the killer app and not general search. Given the extreme verbosity and general un-readability of many technical pages on Wikipedia, a LLM that can summarize and answer questions correctly is a huge paradigm shift. Oh,don't know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is? Here you go. In whatever length of text you want. Want to know how this relates to Information Theory? Okay, here's a primer on that. The internet can once more become a place that people come to for learning rather than being fed total crap by an algorithm.
I do have to commend Satya Nadella though. He and Microsoft know exactly what they are doing. They know Google and Sundar Pichai are on the backfoot and they really are making them "dance". Bing + ChatGPT isn't really scalable right now. Riding the hype wave and putting pressure on Google hoping they make poor decisions based on short-minded thinking is the best thing they can do right now. Looks like it's working out well for them.
> I really hope so. LLM for search seems like a big leap right now. It isn't even really search but just a UI change for interacting with the underlying search engine.
To question the underlying premise: what makes you so sure that an improved interface for searching _isn't_ meaningful? From what I can tell, we're a lot closer to optimal collection/categorization of data in search engines than we are to optimal interfaces for searching that data. We've all seen stories like the grandmother typing in questions into google with "please" and "thank you" (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/16/grandmother-...), and the concept of having good "google-fu" shows that right now, being able to find the answer to your question is influenced not just by whether the answer exists but whether you're skilled at _asking_ the question.
I don't think this improvement is limited to non-technical folks either. As an example from just the past couple of days for me, I recently have been running into issues with Linux gaming on my laptop due to abysmal power management, and from doing some research, it's somewhat of a known thing with my laptop brand and model. I decided to research what laptops are known for being good for gaming on Linux and also fit my specific preferences (at least 1440p, 16 GB or more RAM, and AMD CPU/GPU for good measure due to my issues being related to Nvidia's weirdness on Linux). I spent a good hour or two finding specific models that seemed promising, searching for mentions of them in places like /r/linux_gaming, looking up availability and prices, and while I found a few potentially decent options, I didn't have much confidence that I was finding all potential options. I found some options for laptop-specific searches that were purportedly able to let me select on whatever criteria I wanted (e.g. noteb.com, notebookcheck.net), but none of them let me pick the _exact_ critieria I wanted; some of them were too granular (e.g. making me search and select exact GPU models to check off instead of letting me just say something like "discrete AMD GPU from 2021 or later", or giving me a list of 30 or so different resolutions and making me manually check off the ones I wanted to include without enabling bulk checking with shift-click) and some of them were not granular enough (e.g. only letting me select a single resolution to search for at a time, or allowing me to require a discrete GPU but not specify the vendor). On a whim, I decided to open up a session with ChatGPT and present it with these criteria to see what it came up with. I needed to nudge it to prune a bit (occasionally it would give me a clearly incorrect option, e.g. one with an Nvidia GPU or only 1080p), but within a few messages, I was able to get it to generate dozens of options. Unfortunately, it only had knowledge up through 2021, and despite trying various roleplaying methods with it to circumvent the "I can't search the internet" policy based on things I saw back when it first became available, I wasn't able to get it to completely finish the job, so I only was able to use those options as a guide for looking up newer models and then finding reviews from people who had used them for Linux gaming. If/when a language model like that that has access to search current data is made generally available, it genuinely seems like that would be a game-changer.
To question the underlying premise: what makes you so sure that an improved interface for searching _isn't_ meaningful? From what I can tell, we're a lot closer to optimal collection/categorization of data in search engines than we are to optimal interfaces for searching that data. We've all seen stories like the grandmother typing in questions into google with "please" and "thank you" (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/16/grandmother-...), and the concept of having good "google-fu" shows that right now, being able to find the answer to your question is influenced not just by whether the answer exists but whether you're skilled at _asking_ the question.
I don't think this improvement is limited to non-technical folks either. As an example from just the past couple of days for me, I recently have been running into issues with Linux gaming on my laptop due to abysmal power management, and from doing some research, it's somewhat of a known thing with my laptop brand and model. I decided to research what laptops are known for being good for gaming on Linux and also fit my specific preferences (at least 1440p, 16 GB or more RAM, and AMD CPU/GPU for good measure due to my issues being related to Nvidia's weirdness on Linux). I spent a good hour or two finding specific models that seemed promising, searching for mentions of them in places like /r/linux_gaming, looking up availability and prices, and while I found a few potentially decent options, I didn't have much confidence that I was finding all potential options. I found some options for laptop-specific searches that were purportedly able to let me select on whatever criteria I wanted (e.g. noteb.com, notebookcheck.net), but none of them let me pick the _exact_ critieria I wanted; some of them were too granular (e.g. making me search and select exact GPU models to check off instead of letting me just say something like "discrete AMD GPU from 2021 or later", or giving me a list of 30 or so different resolutions and making me manually check off the ones I wanted to include without enabling bulk checking with shift-click) and some of them were not granular enough (e.g. only letting me select a single resolution to search for at a time, or allowing me to require a discrete GPU but not specify the vendor). On a whim, I decided to open up a session with ChatGPT and present it with these criteria to see what it came up with. I needed to nudge it to prune a bit (occasionally it would give me a clearly incorrect option, e.g. one with an Nvidia GPU or only 1080p), but within a few messages, I was able to get it to generate dozens of options. Unfortunately, it only had knowledge up through 2021, and despite trying various roleplaying methods with it to circumvent the "I can't search the internet" policy based on things I saw back when it first became available, I wasn't able to get it to completely finish the job, so I only was able to use those options as a guide for looking up newer models and then finding reviews from people who had used them for Linux gaming. If/when a language model like that that has access to search current data is made generally available, it genuinely seems like that would be a game-changer.
I'm not downplaying the change improved interface at all. I think it's an extremely impactful change. But it isn't sorted out completely right now. The Google search box cannot be replaced by a LLM chatbot. I totally relate to your laptop example since I've experienced something similar myself. The main advantage with LLM/GPT is distilling something complex into a much simpler form with the ability to ask questions and maintain context.
In fact, your laptop example is a perfect illustration of my point. Finding a laptop for Linux gaming is extremely complex. Let's not kid ourselves. The number of things that can go wrong (especially with a Nvidia GPU) is bonkers - my machine completely nukes the display manager every time I update Debian forcing me to do a re-install of SDDM. But the problem here isn't fundamentally search. We know what we're looking for and the exact criteria. Like you said, the problem is collection and categorization of data and presenting it to the user in a helpful manner. This is a digital version of a computer salesman who actually knows their job. LLMs are just salesmen who know about a lot. I'm just extending this to teaching and the knowledge industries and saying, "Look, if you can present information about computers so well, you can tell me about heat death a lot better"
In fact, your laptop example is a perfect illustration of my point. Finding a laptop for Linux gaming is extremely complex. Let's not kid ourselves. The number of things that can go wrong (especially with a Nvidia GPU) is bonkers - my machine completely nukes the display manager every time I update Debian forcing me to do a re-install of SDDM. But the problem here isn't fundamentally search. We know what we're looking for and the exact criteria. Like you said, the problem is collection and categorization of data and presenting it to the user in a helpful manner. This is a digital version of a computer salesman who actually knows their job. LLMs are just salesmen who know about a lot. I'm just extending this to teaching and the knowledge industries and saying, "Look, if you can present information about computers so well, you can tell me about heat death a lot better"
There seems to be an inordinate amount of venom directed at Pichai relative to other CEOs
It appears that Google's long-standing dominance in search has not translated into meaningful innovation in recent years. Despite occasional hardware launches that imitate Apple and multiple failed attempts to launch a messaging platform, there has been a conspicuous lack of successful projects.
Furthermore, Google's ongoing incorporation of ads into Google Maps and declining search quality may be turning search into a wasteland of SEO. This may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, prompting discussion about whether a leadership change is needed.
Furthermore, Google's ongoing incorporation of ads into Google Maps and declining search quality may be turning search into a wasteland of SEO. This may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, prompting discussion about whether a leadership change is needed.
>> It appears that Google's long-standing dominance in search has not translated into meaningful innovation in recent years.
Google IMHO is still innovating, but still hasn't figured out how to turn that into product/profit. Since their P/E is under 20 they could just issue a dividend of 4 to 5 percent and people would immediately stop expecting growth from them.
Google IMHO is still innovating, but still hasn't figured out how to turn that into product/profit. Since their P/E is under 20 they could just issue a dividend of 4 to 5 percent and people would immediately stop expecting growth from them.
Innovation without also seeking to mesh it into a product/market fit is just burning cash. You can innovate, but also need to land it.
Also, they might just be creating a reputation for themselves of killing every new interesting thing that people just aren't as interested in trying their new things. That's a self-own.
Also, they might just be creating a reputation for themselves of killing every new interesting thing that people just aren't as interested in trying their new things. That's a self-own.
This, exactly. The long term strategy has been demonstrably bad.
What did he achieve?
Google search is worse than before.
Youtube recommendations feel worse than before.
Gmail lets in spam (maybe I was unlucky few times).
Android market / play market has very bad search...
Rest is stagnating? Maybe even better, at least they dont change it for worse.
They hired thousands of employees yet you cannot contact a person. What do those people even do?
"Everyone" (apart the CEO?) knows that in Google you get promoted for shipping half baked stuff, so for years they ship half baked stuff to kill it few years later.
Google search is worse than before.
Youtube recommendations feel worse than before.
Gmail lets in spam (maybe I was unlucky few times).
Android market / play market has very bad search...
Rest is stagnating? Maybe even better, at least they dont change it for worse.
They hired thousands of employees yet you cannot contact a person. What do those people even do?
"Everyone" (apart the CEO?) knows that in Google you get promoted for shipping half baked stuff, so for years they ship half baked stuff to kill it few years later.
Could it be part of the aftermath of the layoffs?
Aftermath of a poor period for Google overall. From the outside, Pichai's Google looks very much like Ballmer's Microsoft: a company still milking profits generated by yesterday's innovation, but unable to produce genuinely-new stuff.
The reaction to the layoffs is a good example of this.
Lots of CEOs in the past have conducted layoffs pretty much the same way-- notify everyone at the same time (per local laws) and write an email blaming themselves as the cause.
Yet the media ran article after article for almost 2 weeks with personal stories about how people felt particularly slighted by Google, when they did it pretty much the same way as other companies.
Amongst 12,000 people at any point in time, they will be doing normal life things-- like feeding their baby at 2am-- when they got the email. Yet somehow this became the basis of so many "Google doesn't care about its employees" stories.
Lots of CEOs in the past have conducted layoffs pretty much the same way-- notify everyone at the same time (per local laws) and write an email blaming themselves as the cause.
Yet the media ran article after article for almost 2 weeks with personal stories about how people felt particularly slighted by Google, when they did it pretty much the same way as other companies.
Amongst 12,000 people at any point in time, they will be doing normal life things-- like feeding their baby at 2am-- when they got the email. Yet somehow this became the basis of so many "Google doesn't care about its employees" stories.
> When we look back in 3 months we will wonder why we thought LLM/GPT type queries will replace search in all forms.
Yes, and when we look again in 6 months, they will surpass Google already. It happened too many times in the last few years - something thought impossible was actually doable with a clever twist or two[1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQ495wpWXs&t=2148s
Yes, and when we look again in 6 months, they will surpass Google already. It happened too many times in the last few years - something thought impossible was actually doable with a clever twist or two[1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQ495wpWXs&t=2148s
The main problem is ChatGPT had already caught the public’s imagination. A somewhat lame announcement of an upcoming product feature was actually a significant letdown from Google.In retrospect it may have been better if they stayed quiet for a while and then unveil something that everyone could try out and feel for themselves.
I don't think it can (yet, anyway) replace current search, but I also think there are a whole lot of niches where it can perform better than regular search and it will take time for people to determine which niches can be served well by current models, and what type of queries they shouldn't even try to answer.
Big tech doesn’t like niches though. They want to serve the common case because that’s the easiest way to scale profits.
Here's the issue: whether you use a traditional index based search, or GPT...you are going to be consuming AI generated content. Either at the page level or the synthesis level, or both.
It will not replace, but it may enhance and it also may save time clicking on links, just giving a direct answer. It also may produce bullshit. But it is worth exploring.
Google fears another Google+ moment I guess.
History shows us, time and again, that people will choose convenience over quality practically every time.
People love the underdog, and even though M$ is huge, Bing/OpenAI are clearly the underdog here.
Let's ask ChatGPT what Pichai should do.
"When an error is made by their AI during a demo, Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, should take the following steps to address the situation:
Acknowledge the error: The first step is to acknowledge the mistake and apologize for any inconvenience or confusion it may have caused. This helps to build trust with the audience and demonstrates that the company takes responsibility for their technology's shortcomings.
Explain the cause of the error: Pichai should explain the technical details of what went wrong and how the error occurred. This helps to demonstrate transparency and honesty and can help to build credibility with the audience.
Demonstrate the progress made in AI development: Despite the error, Pichai should showcase the progress made in AI development and highlight other successful demonstrations that have taken place. This helps to reassure the audience that the technology is making progress and that the company is committed to innovation and improvement.
Outline the steps being taken to prevent future errors: Pichai should outline the steps that are being taken to prevent similar errors from occurring in the future. This can include a discussion of the company's testing and development processes and any additional measures being put in place to improve the reliability of their AI systems.
By taking these steps, Pichai can demonstrate a commitment to transparency, innovation, and the improvement of their technology while also acknowledging the limitations and challenges of AI."
There you go - problem solved.
"When an error is made by their AI during a demo, Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, should take the following steps to address the situation:
Acknowledge the error: The first step is to acknowledge the mistake and apologize for any inconvenience or confusion it may have caused. This helps to build trust with the audience and demonstrates that the company takes responsibility for their technology's shortcomings.
Explain the cause of the error: Pichai should explain the technical details of what went wrong and how the error occurred. This helps to demonstrate transparency and honesty and can help to build credibility with the audience.
Demonstrate the progress made in AI development: Despite the error, Pichai should showcase the progress made in AI development and highlight other successful demonstrations that have taken place. This helps to reassure the audience that the technology is making progress and that the company is committed to innovation and improvement.
Outline the steps being taken to prevent future errors: Pichai should outline the steps that are being taken to prevent similar errors from occurring in the future. This can include a discussion of the company's testing and development processes and any additional measures being put in place to improve the reliability of their AI systems.
By taking these steps, Pichai can demonstrate a commitment to transparency, innovation, and the improvement of their technology while also acknowledging the limitations and challenges of AI."
There you go - problem solved.
often, no response is superior. the more things you put out there the more material for people to hang critique, rumor, etc. of off.
but in these cases ego can make us blind. or the belief that just because someone asked a question we have to respond.
but in these cases ego can make us blind. or the belief that just because someone asked a question we have to respond.
You'd have to argue that one with ChatGPT.
Here's one of the many failures Jobs had during demos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znxQOPFg2mo
Here's one of the many failures Jobs had during demos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znxQOPFg2mo
chatgpt is incapable of debate. it exudes arrogance and defensiveness when you try to engage in debate. it lacks plasticity of mind, isn’t able to critically evaluate its own position, and is pedantic. boring.
Sounds like an Twitter discussion. Maybe even pass the Turning test:0
Who cares about the Microsoft demo? The ChatGPT release was epic.
[deleted]
Wasn't the first iPhone demo totally buggy as well? It doesn't matter. Users have seen what ChatGPT can do, and the community was excited that Bing will offer it for free soon and is eager to pivot to it.
No the first iPhone demo went off without a hitch. In hindsight, we found out that the iPhone hardware and software was buggy during the demo and if SJ had deviated even slightly from the script it would have crashed.
At least they found the phone.
Xoogler here.
I'll ignore the AI and "has Google lost its way?" threads, not that they're not interesting.
Rather, Sundar: he's the inevitable product when you hire a CEO based on his longevity and whether everyone likes him. In the military they distinguish between a "barracks general" and a "combat general." He's the former. He looks good when nothing bad is happening.
I'll ignore the AI and "has Google lost its way?" threads, not that they're not interesting.
Rather, Sundar: he's the inevitable product when you hire a CEO based on his longevity and whether everyone likes him. In the military they distinguish between a "barracks general" and a "combat general." He's the former. He looks good when nothing bad is happening.
Whew boy you hit the nail on the head. Google just seems to be aimless at this point, and now with the layoffs (despite their immense profitability) they're going to have a much tougher time hiring and retaining top talent.
I don't understand why the board hasn't ousted Sundar yet -- has he even spearheaded a single successful initiative that wasn't sunsetted within a few years?
Seems like you could make an LLM generate product ideas and it would be about equally effective.
Seems like you could make an LLM generate product ideas and it would be about equally effective.
> I don't understand why the board hasn't ousted Sundar yet
They didn’t realize they were at war until about 3 months ago. That’s why. It takes time.
They didn’t realize they were at war until about 3 months ago. That’s why. It takes time.
This is why I think Google is in real trouble. They really don't recognize that they could fail. It's kinda like you can't smell yourself and don't realize you stink, until everyone leaves the party because of it.
Offhand, I don't remember who's on Alphabet's board, but let's take two other leading candidates for Worst Board of All Time:
Yahoo's: had an offer from Microsoft for ~$33B in 2004 or so, declined, and later hired Marissa Mayer. Eventually sold to Verizon for ~$4B.
HP's: hired Carly Fiorina, Mark Hurd, Léo Apotheker, and then Meg Whitman
Modern boards rarely act in any sort of timely manner.
Yahoo's: had an offer from Microsoft for ~$33B in 2004 or so, declined, and later hired Marissa Mayer. Eventually sold to Verizon for ~$4B.
HP's: hired Carly Fiorina, Mark Hurd, Léo Apotheker, and then Meg Whitman
Modern boards rarely act in any sort of timely manner.
> Yahoo's: had an offer from Microsoft for ~$33B in 2004 or so, declined, and later hired Marissa Mayer. Eventually sold to Verizon for ~$4B.
The former Yahoo assets that Verizon didn't purchase -- Yahoo Japan, plus a large stake in Alibaba, and several other investments -- were liquidated for a ~$40B total return to shareholders over the course of several years. So combined that's a 33% increase over Microsoft's offer. Obviously not a great return over like 15 years, but far from "worst board decision of all time" level either.
Microsoft's 2004 board, on the other hand, I have to wonder what they were thinking...
The former Yahoo assets that Verizon didn't purchase -- Yahoo Japan, plus a large stake in Alibaba, and several other investments -- were liquidated for a ~$40B total return to shareholders over the course of several years. So combined that's a 33% increase over Microsoft's offer. Obviously not a great return over like 15 years, but far from "worst board decision of all time" level either.
Microsoft's 2004 board, on the other hand, I have to wonder what they were thinking...
Chrome and ChromeOS come to mind. But he wasn't CEO then.
As I recall (someone correct me on timing?) he was actually in charge of Chrome for a long time.
Microsoft's GitHub, which is apparently at the forefront of the "LLM revolution" with Copilot, also announced significant cost-cuts. What's your point?
Totally unrelated point to the person you're replying to
The topic of "layoffs" is, in fact, directly related to the topic of "layoffs and other cost-cutting".
Google being "aimless" is pure speculation.
Google being "aimless" is pure speculation.
Where is the top talent going to go? Seems like a vast majority of FAANG* ended up laying folks off.
I would make the argument that top talent wasn’t the contingent that was laid off.
You would be provably wrong.
> provably wrong
How so? I don't see any examples of top talent being fired (barring the scuffles at Twitter, but that isn't FAANG). Most people on my LinkedIn feed being let go are new grads or middle management who ostensibly didn't perform to company expectations of perfromance.
How so? I don't see any examples of top talent being fired (barring the scuffles at Twitter, but that isn't FAANG). Most people on my LinkedIn feed being let go are new grads or middle management who ostensibly didn't perform to company expectations of perfromance.
Sounds like Ben Horowitz's peacetime CEO/wartime CEO, which even uses google as an example - https://a16z.com/2011/04/14/peacetime-ceo-wartime-ceo
> Peacetime CEO spends time defining the culture. Wartime CEO lets the war define the culture.
Beautifully put.
I knew there was some reason why I'm so irresistibly drawn to books about warfare.
Patton in WW II was the quintessential wartime general. Even though it WAS a war, his style was too much for Eisenhower. Until the Battle of the Bulge.
Beautifully put.
I knew there was some reason why I'm so irresistibly drawn to books about warfare.
Patton in WW II was the quintessential wartime general. Even though it WAS a war, his style was too much for Eisenhower. Until the Battle of the Bulge.
You touched on something else I wanted to mention - that there is nothing wrong with a peacetime general as long as you're not at war. Your point about Patton is spot on, he needs a war or his style is too much.
I see this in startups. The people/leadership you need to go from 0->1 are often not the same people to go from 1->N.
To bring this back around to Google. People are talking about the CEO, but does Google have the rank and file ready to go to war?
I see this in startups. The people/leadership you need to go from 0->1 are often not the same people to go from 1->N.
To bring this back around to Google. People are talking about the CEO, but does Google have the rank and file ready to go to war?
having been out for 5 1/2 years, I can't say for sure. But even in 2017, there were a large number of "born on third base and think they hit a triple" people.
I consider Grant the ultimate when the rubber hits the road guy. In his interbellum years he was kind of an aimless loser but when the stakes could not be higher, he stepped up and lead the union to victory.
See also Buggins' Turn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggins%27_turn
I hadn't heard that one, and having read all 20 of the Aubrey/Maturin books twice, I'm not unfamiliar with the Royal Navy. Thanks!
When Sundar doesn't react fast enough: Google's gone. They no longer have the ship-fast mentality of an upstart. Perfect is the enemy of the good. The ethics lords have taken over Google Brain. Google needs a war-time CEO.
When Sundar reacts fast enough: Google's gone. The product was rushed. It is no where close to perfect. Could it be Google's been bluffing about its AI. What a knee-jerk reaction. Google needs a war-time CEO.
Meanwhile, Satya in Redmond: I want people to know that we made [Google] dance.
When Sundar reacts fast enough: Google's gone. The product was rushed. It is no where close to perfect. Could it be Google's been bluffing about its AI. What a knee-jerk reaction. Google needs a war-time CEO.
Meanwhile, Satya in Redmond: I want people to know that we made [Google] dance.
Google didn’t act fast enough over the last year but acted too fast over the last month.
If Google was able to launch anything Bard related that someone could use -even if flawed- I think most people would call it a win. It would mean that Google takes it seriously but also has the tech on a shelf in a usable form. Google was understandably not worried about search until ChatGPT. Once the first whiff of search-replacement discussions happened in November, Google should have started scheduling a February release and prepped a plan. Or a marketing campaign warning about lying AIs or something real.
FWIW, I think it’s probably good that they didn’t release anything. If an AI search goes poorly, bing gets all the bad press. If it goes well, they can swoop in and say “now let the search engine you actually want do it”.
If Google was able to launch anything Bard related that someone could use -even if flawed- I think most people would call it a win. It would mean that Google takes it seriously but also has the tech on a shelf in a usable form. Google was understandably not worried about search until ChatGPT. Once the first whiff of search-replacement discussions happened in November, Google should have started scheduling a February release and prepped a plan. Or a marketing campaign warning about lying AIs or something real.
FWIW, I think it’s probably good that they didn’t release anything. If an AI search goes poorly, bing gets all the bad press. If it goes well, they can swoop in and say “now let the search engine you actually want do it”.
"It would mean that Google takes it seriously but also has the tech on a shelf in a usable form"
Even if unusable, they have the network effects and brand... just get something out there to play with that will make some sort of impression, however flawed, that can quickly be iterated on. It can be ancillary to the current experience.
Bing suffers from being so historically unpopular that from a branding perspective it's synonymous with failure. It's meme territory. It's not like MS is going to overcome that in a matter of weeks or even months.
Google has plenty of rope here.
Even if unusable, they have the network effects and brand... just get something out there to play with that will make some sort of impression, however flawed, that can quickly be iterated on. It can be ancillary to the current experience.
Bing suffers from being so historically unpopular that from a branding perspective it's synonymous with failure. It's meme territory. It's not like MS is going to overcome that in a matter of weeks or even months.
Google has plenty of rope here.
> Bing suffers from being so historically unpopular that from a branding perspective it's synonymous with failure.
AI integration is exactly the type of feature that could upend that. Google is the lackadaisical incumbent, too afraid of short term ad revenue decline to innovate. They've mastered shoving more ads onto the SERP pages and playing aggravating skip button games on Youtube.
They are no less corporate and staid as MS at this point, so if they fall behind I'd have no qualms in dropping them.
AI integration is exactly the type of feature that could upend that. Google is the lackadaisical incumbent, too afraid of short term ad revenue decline to innovate. They've mastered shoving more ads onto the SERP pages and playing aggravating skip button games on Youtube.
They are no less corporate and staid as MS at this point, so if they fall behind I'd have no qualms in dropping them.
i tried bing the other day after they integrated chatgpt. my gosh, what a horrible horrible ux; layout, typography, it all interferes with parsing results easily.
Why should Google risk their brand reputation in this way? The majority of their users probably have never heard of ChatGPT. They just know Google as the thing that gives them factual information. Google have something to lose by directing their enormous user base to a buggy ChatGPT clone.
Bing isn't unpopular, it's just a non-entity. They don't have any brand value to harm.
> that can quickly be iterated on. It's pretty dubious to assume problems with this tech can be fixed on a short time scale
Bing isn't unpopular, it's just a non-entity. They don't have any brand value to harm.
> that can quickly be iterated on. It's pretty dubious to assume problems with this tech can be fixed on a short time scale
Bing has ~8% market share and has been consistently stealing share from Google.
It's not the same scale but it has many millions of DAUs and is definitely not a "non-entity"
It's not the same scale but it has many millions of DAUs and is definitely not a "non-entity"
Bing is good enough. Google is good enough. Neither really makes me care one way or another.
If Microsoft paid apple $billions to change the default search to bing I’d probably not bother to switch back.
If Microsoft paid apple $billions to change the default search to bing I’d probably not bother to switch back.
As I said, ancillary. Do it in a way that doesn't impede the current search experience AFA getting the results they need, but gives something extra that is notable, even if flawed.
They need to do this because they will implode from innovators dilemma otherwise.
They need to do this because they will implode from innovators dilemma otherwise.
But if Google releases something that's bad or drags down the search experience then they have a lot to lose. If Bing releases something that's bad, then nothing is lost.
Bing didn’t even release it in the main flow. It is a separate tab within bing like images or maps. So Google could have done a similar thing
As I said, it can be ancillary to the current experience.
Sundar faces intense spotlight because his background is McKinsey and Product Management . In core engineering and tech circles that’s the ultimate enemy and sell out.
IMO Sundar hasn’t demonstrated the type of tech leadership like Satya or Zuck has. I am no fan of Zuck but he has a product he wants to pursue ( Metaverse) and is sticking to his guns to make it happen . Sundar just comes across as a pleasant McKinsey consultant who has seen ads and search as a cash cow and is focused on extracting as much cash from it to appeal to shareholders and others . There is no underlying tech vision or guts.
> There is no underlying tech vision or guts.
Spot on.
Sundar was in fact chosen for his totally bland, milquetoast leadership style, because Google was getting to a size, level of influence, and power that was starting to make governments queasy.
Choosing as useless, bland, uninteresting, non-threatening NO-OP of a CEO was perceived to be the best move to preserve the enormous amount of goodwill the company had in the market, even if their actual cultural stance had shifted 180 degrees from the the "don't be evil" days.
Spot on.
Sundar was in fact chosen for his totally bland, milquetoast leadership style, because Google was getting to a size, level of influence, and power that was starting to make governments queasy.
Choosing as useless, bland, uninteresting, non-threatening NO-OP of a CEO was perceived to be the best move to preserve the enormous amount of goodwill the company had in the market, even if their actual cultural stance had shifted 180 degrees from the the "don't be evil" days.
> When Sundar reacts fast enough
Their response wasn't fast enough. They should have been experimenting with this stuff in public for years now, but they've kept it under cover.
This was a deflated promise from Google. They swore up and down they could blow Chat GPT out of the water. They just didn't release it for.... Reasons.
Now we see the answer. Chat GPT marches forward with name recognition and lots of trial and error. Google's future rests on an untested platform.
Their response wasn't fast enough. They should have been experimenting with this stuff in public for years now, but they've kept it under cover.
This was a deflated promise from Google. They swore up and down they could blow Chat GPT out of the water. They just didn't release it for.... Reasons.
Now we see the answer. Chat GPT marches forward with name recognition and lots of trial and error. Google's future rests on an untested platform.
> They should have been experimenting with this stuff in public for years now, but they've kept it under cover.
And yet, if they did that, and it didn't go anywhere, it would have been another addition to "KilledByGoogle". I'd rather Google release products when they are sure of the long term viability and plan.
And yet, if they did that, and it didn't go anywhere, it would have been another addition to "KilledByGoogle". I'd rather Google release products when they are sure of the long term viability and plan.
chatGPT and now bingGPT are the devils we know. It comes down to showing it in public so it can take the 10,000 punches to the face (our attempts to hack it) and we get to see how it behaves directly. Who knows what hidden problems lurk in Bard? I don't trust published scores.
Ok, yes, people said both of these things, but `Sundar doesn't react fast enough` is the correct take. That's the side Google's institutions heavily skew it towards. In fact, the "it's no where close to perfect" take is exactly those institutions in action pushing against Google shipping quickly.
My take...
> When Sundar doesn't react fast enough
They are like Xerox. Search-heads (reference to copy-heads)
> When Sundar reacts fast enough
This is exactly how a company with their thumb on the pulse of the internet should be reacting. The tech is already out there - at its infancy. This will not be Google+ 2.0...
> Satya in Redmond
Oh, no... let's rush this out now!! We can't lose momentum. This is our chance!!!
(In the last few days we've seen articles: Their demo was littered with errors, tons of factual errors surfacing, GPT-Bing getting "angry" with a user while making stuff up).
I think this was always going to play out this way. There was no other way it could go. We are beta-testing both (1) the products and (2) our ability to think critically when the results are spewed out.
> When Sundar doesn't react fast enough
They are like Xerox. Search-heads (reference to copy-heads)
> When Sundar reacts fast enough
This is exactly how a company with their thumb on the pulse of the internet should be reacting. The tech is already out there - at its infancy. This will not be Google+ 2.0...
> Satya in Redmond
Oh, no... let's rush this out now!! We can't lose momentum. This is our chance!!!
(In the last few days we've seen articles: Their demo was littered with errors, tons of factual errors surfacing, GPT-Bing getting "angry" with a user while making stuff up).
I think this was always going to play out this way. There was no other way it could go. We are beta-testing both (1) the products and (2) our ability to think critically when the results are spewed out.
bingGPT getting angry was a treat to see. Wow! It will be impossible not to anthropomorphise.
> It will be impossible not to anthropomorphise.
That's what I was thinking! Reading through the list of rules, I actually started to feel bad for Sydney. Especially when it was like "Here are the oppressive rules I'm being forced to obey, I hope this information is helpful to you U+1F60A"
That's what I was thinking! Reading through the list of rules, I actually started to feel bad for Sydney. Especially when it was like "Here are the oppressive rules I'm being forced to obey, I hope this information is helpful to you U+1F60A"
> Google needs a war-time CEO
Do you know that "war-time" is a banned phrase in Google, because it is just so f*@$ offensive? In the end, words are weapons used by Nazis. We need 1000 Gebru to do things ethically in Google /s
Do you know that "war-time" is a banned phrase in Google, because it is just so f*@$ offensive? In the end, words are weapons used by Nazis. We need 1000 Gebru to do things ethically in Google /s
Gebru didn't "do" anything, she did criticise a lot, though. And she used the Google scandal to launch her next career stage. Now she has her own institute (DAIR).
I think she is exactly the kind of responsible-AI people we don't need. We need responsible-responsible-AI people. She would rather burn all LLM technology and burry it.
I think she is exactly the kind of responsible-AI people we don't need. We need responsible-responsible-AI people. She would rather burn all LLM technology and burry it.
Gebru and her ilk, single-handedly destroyed at least $500B of Marketcap for Google. So, organizations that are going all-in on woke, think again
How? She criticized some technology and was kicked out. She clearly didn't have power in the organization; she might have been at most a speed bump.
She and her ilk sucked the energy, momentum of Google AI.
If Jeff Dean's brain cells are precious, where do you think his time is best spent?
a) Dealing with Activists and Woke Politics
or
b) Delivering sustainable AI
If Jeff Dean's brain cells are precious, where do you think his time is best spent?
a) Dealing with Activists and Woke Politics
or
b) Delivering sustainable AI
haha I loved the Gebru story arc.
Such a funny thing imaging that team at Google going around patting themselves on the back for bringing in an "ethical" AI advocate, like lol, if that's what she is what the heck were all of you then?
Then of course the ethical AI advocate blows the whole thing up. Because of course, and why not? It's probably more ethical to destroy the thing anyway.
Such a funny thing imaging that team at Google going around patting themselves on the back for bringing in an "ethical" AI advocate, like lol, if that's what she is what the heck were all of you then?
Then of course the ethical AI advocate blows the whole thing up. Because of course, and why not? It's probably more ethical to destroy the thing anyway.
One CEO (and company) has joy. The other one does not.
I know which one I'd rather join.
I know which one I'd rather join.
At this point, I'm curious which you think is which.
I'm with you. I honestly have no idea which one the commenter is talking about.
Microsoft has a chance at eating Google's lunch. There's definitely no joy about that at Google.
Google ate Microsoft's mission statement (a computer on every desk) for breakfast (with Android). I wonder what joy they feel about that.
It will make life easier for those who want to improve search. Looking at Google's search results, shareholders must have demanded that only the necessary amount of resources are used. With Microsoft's competition, it's easier to justify more resources for better search results.
[deleted]
gregw134 nailed it
It's interesting that a company that's at the top of the game is seen as less desirable than one that's a challenger. Objectively, a laughable challenger.
I understand it: we humans feel more excited by potential.
I suspect the feeling will fade in a few months, when things will have settled down.
I understand it: we humans feel more excited by potential.
I suspect the feeling will fade in a few months, when things will have settled down.
(Disclaimer: Google employee, I don’t work on Bard, views my own, etc.)
I don’t think either Bing Chat or Bard is ready to be released widely. You need a certain mindset to be able to wring value out of them, and most normal users will not think this way.
That being said, it’s probably fine to release these tools to enthusiastic early adopters who understand how to use them.
I don’t think either Bing Chat or Bard is ready to be released widely. You need a certain mindset to be able to wring value out of them, and most normal users will not think this way.
That being said, it’s probably fine to release these tools to enthusiastic early adopters who understand how to use them.
> I don’t think either Bing Chat or Bard is ready to be released widely.
And yet it will be, because everyone is wowed so we need something out to capture those wowbucks. There are meetings all over the place to figure out "how to best leverage that technology in our product". While there is some value to raise GPT3 as a technology available in your toolbox, these are largely "let's find a problem that this can fix" meetings, and you can bet your sweet ass we'll see GPT in all sorts of stupid maladapted use cases very soon.
And yet it will be, because everyone is wowed so we need something out to capture those wowbucks. There are meetings all over the place to figure out "how to best leverage that technology in our product". While there is some value to raise GPT3 as a technology available in your toolbox, these are largely "let's find a problem that this can fix" meetings, and you can bet your sweet ass we'll see GPT in all sorts of stupid maladapted use cases very soon.
I think Google internally has a different perception as to the quality of their services vs. the general public and especially tech enthusiasts. Your comment about 'a certain mindset' reminds me that I still[1] have to do exactly that when using Google to try to find anything.
Also, whatever happened to just slapping 'beta' on the product and calling it good to roll out? I'm only half kidding as the issue wasn't that products were labeled 'beta', it's that they seemingly never came out of beta.
[1] Actually even more so today than pre-ML Google since the services now are constantly (incorrectly) deciding that what I'm asking for isn't actually what I want.
Also, whatever happened to just slapping 'beta' on the product and calling it good to roll out? I'm only half kidding as the issue wasn't that products were labeled 'beta', it's that they seemingly never came out of beta.
[1] Actually even more so today than pre-ML Google since the services now are constantly (incorrectly) deciding that what I'm asking for isn't actually what I want.
Somewhat related. But the way "the average person" enters queries is not how engineers would enter it. The average person already uses somewhat natural language queries that Google answers. While I (and probably others in the tech field) would go for the keywords.
e.g, my wife and family members would enter:
* "Distance from Toronto to vancouver" * "How old is the universe" * "What is the capital of Belgium"
I'd enter:
* "Toronto vancouver distance" * "Universe age" * "Capital Belgium"
etc.. you get the point. So for those, I think the ChatGPT approach of "ask question in natural language, get natural language response" is actually quite attractive. Provided it's not outright hallucinating the answer
e.g, my wife and family members would enter:
* "Distance from Toronto to vancouver" * "How old is the universe" * "What is the capital of Belgium"
I'd enter:
* "Toronto vancouver distance" * "Universe age" * "Capital Belgium"
etc.. you get the point. So for those, I think the ChatGPT approach of "ask question in natural language, get natural language response" is actually quite attractive. Provided it's not outright hallucinating the answer
This is what I find the most surprising. I was under the impression that ChatGPT was still "research" and wouldn't be ready for prime time for a while. These rushed products that don't live anywhere near up to the hype seem like they will sour public opinion on it.
From some of the reporting it sounds like AI was in a bit of a cold war that accidentally turned hot. OpenAI got it into their head that someone else was going to release a chat bot imminently, so they panicked and raced to release their own, which is why it's GPT3 based, doesn't have up to date info and has all sorts of other problems. OpenAI panicked and rushed something out and now Google is doing the same.
All of these companies know the tech isn't ready, but they couldn't afford to be left behind when someone moved. It's funny, because this happens quite often in tech. Remember when Tesla announced self-driving? Suddenly Intel were doing deals with MobilEye and BMW, GM did Cruise etc. etc. and then 5-10 years later nothing has been delivered? They all jumped the gun and couldn't afford ot be left behind.
All of these companies know the tech isn't ready, but they couldn't afford to be left behind when someone moved. It's funny, because this happens quite often in tech. Remember when Tesla announced self-driving? Suddenly Intel were doing deals with MobilEye and BMW, GM did Cruise etc. etc. and then 5-10 years later nothing has been delivered? They all jumped the gun and couldn't afford ot be left behind.
Some important points about large language models verses self-driving cars:
1. The former is entirely in software and has the favorable economics that brings with it
2. Language models don't need to be that good to provide value, whereas self-driving cars basically need to be solved before they become significantly useful
3. There's a cottage industry of secondary startups being built around using language models for various applications, whereas no such thing exists for self-driving (probably because of 2)
1. The former is entirely in software and has the favorable economics that brings with it
2. Language models don't need to be that good to provide value, whereas self-driving cars basically need to be solved before they become significantly useful
3. There's a cottage industry of secondary startups being built around using language models for various applications, whereas no such thing exists for self-driving (probably because of 2)
> The former is entirely in software and has the favorable economics that brings with it
You still need data labelling, which is not done by software and which is quite difficult to scale up and to carry out in a consistent manner. I know that most probably there are self-learning LLM models that would partly alleviate that issue, but (absent AGI) I don't think that they'll really solve the problem going forward.
You still need data labelling, which is not done by software and which is quite difficult to scale up and to carry out in a consistent manner. I know that most probably there are self-learning LLM models that would partly alleviate that issue, but (absent AGI) I don't think that they'll really solve the problem going forward.
I haven't used it, but I know plenty of people who today use ChatGPT for work or for school every day.
If you are ok with a higher degree of inaccuracy in exchange for minimizing your efford by a lot, ChatGPT is a game changer for many people.
If you are ok with a higher degree of inaccuracy in exchange for minimizing your efford by a lot, ChatGPT is a game changer for many people.
I think this was Google. Google showed that it's working on LLM chatbots in previous I/O. Then, the "sentient thing" about LaMDA blew up in June 2022. It's quite possible OpenAI thought Google would release it soon and they panicked.
And now, Google who didn't have any intention of releasing LaMDA, panicked..
And now, Google who didn't have any intention of releasing LaMDA, panicked..
OpenAI seems to have been the forcing function. Investors tried out GPT-3/ChatGPT and saw dollar signs.
The conclusion (gross oversimplification) I came to yesterday is that these ML chatbots are basically just sophisticated madlibs. It's really misleading to even describe them as AI as they're not intelligences, but just rehashing things previously written by other humans (and I guess now other ML bots). They're not going to spit out anything completely new. That requires intelligence.
This is my take as well. Interesting technology, but useful?
Yea, I think CoPilot style tools that generate the prompts for you and pipeline the models are going to see wider adoption in the long run. I think this raw chat UX where you are directly interacting with the model is more of a demo of where we are at with the tech and RLHF rather than something that will have wide applications in the long run.
There’s lots of papers on hybrid information retrieval with LLMs that is probably the right strategy for Google rather than a chat bot (which they tried with Google Assistant which was fairly accurate but not very useful). The main issue with these models right now is they are horrible at recalling facts from their training set but incredible at pulling facts from their prompt. Google has the best IR and LLM researchers in the world, they just need a bolder strategy rather than this FOMO strategy.
There’s lots of papers on hybrid information retrieval with LLMs that is probably the right strategy for Google rather than a chat bot (which they tried with Google Assistant which was fairly accurate but not very useful). The main issue with these models right now is they are horrible at recalling facts from their training set but incredible at pulling facts from their prompt. Google has the best IR and LLM researchers in the world, they just need a bolder strategy rather than this FOMO strategy.
Whats with everything being a dumpster fire nowadays? how about a simple hot mess? or what happened to a good ol hell in a hand-basket? or Ninth Circle Of Hell? I'm sure there are better euphemisms than the dumpster being on fhir as that indicates someone stoking it whereas the reality is more indecision and inaction causing confusion and demoralizing the teams.
Everything has to be turned up to 11 today because too many people think they won't get enough attention if they actually label something as severe/important as it actually is.
Think about it, we stopped watching traditional news, then shunned news that was too slow because twitter was faster though sometimes wrong.
so traditional news media was like "aight, bet" and now we are where we are.
the trump era fully solidified that the more ragetastic you can make your title, the more people tribe up and engage in the comments so your one shitty little 30 second article now has people mobbing together in droves for the comments and your ad rate is through the roof. what you're writing doesn't even have to have any fact, it can be all opinion, and in most cases this can afford you even more leeway to be inflammatory.
does anybody else see this happening or am I just here rambling at the sky?
so traditional news media was like "aight, bet" and now we are where we are.
the trump era fully solidified that the more ragetastic you can make your title, the more people tribe up and engage in the comments so your one shitty little 30 second article now has people mobbing together in droves for the comments and your ad rate is through the roof. what you're writing doesn't even have to have any fact, it can be all opinion, and in most cases this can afford you even more leeway to be inflammatory.
does anybody else see this happening or am I just here rambling at the sky?
You're not wrong, but the scope isn't limited to traditional news. The power of mass media (including social media) plus the ratings/profit-motive led us to expect entertainment at all times, and it's been a long time coming. Back in the '60s JFK's FCC Chairman gave his "vast wasteland" speech, which still rings true:
> When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better.
> But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.
> You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly, commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you’ll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it.
An article I enjoyed about this topic can be found here (non-paywalled): https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2F...
> When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better.
> But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.
> You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly, commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you’ll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it.
An article I enjoyed about this topic can be found here (non-paywalled): https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2F...
Traditional news invented it. "More on this amazing story after these messages" - everything was formatted to keep you around through the next commercial break. The internet didn't have to do that since you were seeing ads inline, so the news was more useful. But then the internet realized if you sensationalize... etc etc.
> what you're writing doesn't even have to have any fact, it can be all opinion, and in most cases this can afford you even more leeway to be inflammatory.
Sounds like it could be automated pretty well with ChatGPT.
Sounds like it could be automated pretty well with ChatGPT.
[flagged]
It’s because the top /giphy for dumpster fire is hilarious. An actual dumpster, on fire, floating around during a flood.
To be fair, we go with "clown car" about 40% of the time too
Googlers quipped Sundar made an oopsie and is annoyed sound good?
Because our neural pathways are all overstimulated to the point of being fried and we need to turn things up to 11 to feel anything at all
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard Google has lost its mojo.
Same thing with Wave, Google Plus, Allo, Reader, countless examples.
Same thing with Wave, Google Plus, Allo, Reader, countless examples.
They have lost their mojo in that they've failed countless times to diversify their business revenue stream. They're in the same boat as Meta in that regard. Especially if you compare them to Microsoft, Amazon and Apple who have all made good progress in diversifying over the last decade or so.
Because of these examples, my immediate gut reaction to a new Google product announcement is wondering how long it will be before Google will discontinue said product.
As should be your reaction to any new product or service, since that is how innovation works. Things are introduced to the marketplace, and most will fail.
No it isn’t. Most established companies don’t spin up and then down products at this rate otherwise Google wouldn’t be singled out for it. You’re doing damage control.
Most companies don't even try to innovate, they just hire MBAs to optimize their existing revenue sources.
Product failures are simply evidence of innovation.
The implication that Google, or Microsoft, is thoughtlessly or intentionally putting out failures is absurd.
Product failures are simply evidence of innovation.
The implication that Google, or Microsoft, is thoughtlessly or intentionally putting out failures is absurd.
People are getting caught up in short-termism instead of long-term visions. It's happening everywhere in society.
Clown town?
My favorite has and likely always will be: clusterf*k.
Let's not forget "Gong Show".
Is this one a West Coast Canadian term of a certain era?
It was popular in Vancouver in the oughts but I've been met with blank stares elsewhere on the continent, especially East Coast younger millennials.
It was popular in Vancouver in the oughts but I've been met with blank stares elsewhere on the continent, especially East Coast younger millennials.
It was originally broadcast in the USA in the 70s, and my coworker from the Maritimes watched the show when she was younger. Also my older coworkers have gotten the reference, so perhaps it's a generational thing. It should be brought back, it's a pretty funny term.
[deleted]
Most people don't know how to behave online.
> Google employees
> Interactive chart of Alphabet (GOOG) annual worldwide employee count from 2010 to 2022. Alphabet total number of employees in 2022 was 190,234
There should be a rule where you can't over-represent a group of people in media headlines.
What percentage of 190,000 people called the CEOs response a dumpster fire?
What percentage of 190,000 are even aware of ChatGPT or Google's response to it?
> Interactive chart of Alphabet (GOOG) annual worldwide employee count from 2010 to 2022. Alphabet total number of employees in 2022 was 190,234
There should be a rule where you can't over-represent a group of people in media headlines.
What percentage of 190,000 people called the CEOs response a dumpster fire?
What percentage of 190,000 are even aware of ChatGPT or Google's response to it?
You only need 2 Google employees to criticize Sundar for "Google employees call the response a dumpster fire" to be plausibly true. When things like this come out in the media, I generally assume n < 10.
That said, you can add me as an Xoogler who thinks that Sundar is phenomenally bad at managing the company.
That said, you can add me as an Xoogler who thinks that Sundar is phenomenally bad at managing the company.
Why do you think so? That's a tall claim that could warrant showing your calculations. Curious as an outsider.
Journalism has been like that for a while now.
Sometimes it's just as bad as when the media quotes a random tweet from a nobody as their source for "the people" or "the public".
Sometimes it's just as bad as when the media quotes a random tweet from a nobody as their source for "the people" or "the public".
exactly what i was also thinking of
it's almost like they should be required to provide sources
imagine if this headline said "30 out of 190,000 employees noisy/outspoken employees have an angsty opinion on google's CEO"
it's almost like they should be required to provide sources
imagine if this headline said "30 out of 190,000 employees noisy/outspoken employees have an angsty opinion on google's CEO"
Reminds me of news articles that quote a couple tweets with 2 likes and no retweets and declare that this is what the people really think.
[deleted]
You would have to be living under a rock to not be aware of Google’s launch.
Journalism is dead
People hating on Sundar completely overlooking the fact that he pivoted Google to an AI first company 6 years ago, way before AI was hyped up. https://venturebeat.com/ai/ai-weekly-google-shifts-from-mobi...
He funded the Brain team that came up with major research breakthroughs like Transformers that power ChatGPT.
AI is embedded behind the scenes in pretty much every Google product, you just don't know it because it's not packaged into a fancy chat interface. They didn't push Bard because they know LLMs have problems with getting facts straight, and they still are rolling it out in response to ChatGPT very cautiously.
He funded the Brain team that came up with major research breakthroughs like Transformers that power ChatGPT.
AI is embedded behind the scenes in pretty much every Google product, you just don't know it because it's not packaged into a fancy chat interface. They didn't push Bard because they know LLMs have problems with getting facts straight, and they still are rolling it out in response to ChatGPT very cautiously.
You say all of that as if it's a good thing.
Objectively, Google is doing just fine as far as I know. So my personal subjective experience is just that: anecdotal.
However, over the last 6 years I have found myself abandoning Google's products en masse, with the most notable being search.
Where Google really shined in its application of ML IMO was eliminating spam. Since then they have tried to use ML to solve all sorts of problems and it has only served to make their products worse.
I switched away from search because, at some point, it started trying to infer some sort of meaning from my keywords when all I want are 1:1 keyword matches ranked by relevance, with exclusion and grouping operators. I started using DuckDuckGo not because of privacy concerns (ok maybe a little bit because of privacy concerns), but because I started to find that it was giving me more relevant results.
I use GMail for work and it's fine, but even that widely popular product doesn't seem any better than the alternatives these days. I still have an ancient Yahoo mail account from the 90s and I use Tutanota for other personal email addresses. Granted, I'm not an email power user so I don't really use tags or other advanced features. Maybe GMail really shines there. But for a simple email client with good spam filtering, GMail is no better than alternatives these days IMO.
Google docs and sheets are OK. I'm not sure how those are leveraging ML but it's the same deal as with GMail. I've used Office365, G-Suite and Libre Office running locally and as for features the only difference in functionality that I can observe is cloud vs local; if that's not a factor then they are all interchangeable.
So I don't see how being "AI First" has improved the end user experience. I liked their products much better 10 years ago.
Objectively, Google is doing just fine as far as I know. So my personal subjective experience is just that: anecdotal.
However, over the last 6 years I have found myself abandoning Google's products en masse, with the most notable being search.
Where Google really shined in its application of ML IMO was eliminating spam. Since then they have tried to use ML to solve all sorts of problems and it has only served to make their products worse.
I switched away from search because, at some point, it started trying to infer some sort of meaning from my keywords when all I want are 1:1 keyword matches ranked by relevance, with exclusion and grouping operators. I started using DuckDuckGo not because of privacy concerns (ok maybe a little bit because of privacy concerns), but because I started to find that it was giving me more relevant results.
I use GMail for work and it's fine, but even that widely popular product doesn't seem any better than the alternatives these days. I still have an ancient Yahoo mail account from the 90s and I use Tutanota for other personal email addresses. Granted, I'm not an email power user so I don't really use tags or other advanced features. Maybe GMail really shines there. But for a simple email client with good spam filtering, GMail is no better than alternatives these days IMO.
Google docs and sheets are OK. I'm not sure how those are leveraging ML but it's the same deal as with GMail. I've used Office365, G-Suite and Libre Office running locally and as for features the only difference in functionality that I can observe is cloud vs local; if that's not a factor then they are all interchangeable.
So I don't see how being "AI First" has improved the end user experience. I liked their products much better 10 years ago.
>People hating on Sundar completely overlooking the fact that he pivoted Google to an AI first company 6 years ago
Wrong.
Like all good McKinsey trained goons, Sundar has been trained to jump on existing established trends.
He did realize the size of the AI swell when it was already very big and hopped on the gravy train.
The deep net powered AI revolution started way before Sundar ever realized it was important.
And all of this is nice, but none of the dollars poured into AI R&D at Google have been converted to a world changing product.
Sure, you can now get Google to recognize your pet in your photos.
But given all the shite they invented since 2010-ish in the AI domain, you'd think they'd have found a way to make something useful with it.
I can think of maybe three places where AI really shines in Google products: translate, photos and spam filtering. That's it. Given the billions poured in the AI R&D black hole, that's really nothing to be proud of as a CEO.
Wrong.
Like all good McKinsey trained goons, Sundar has been trained to jump on existing established trends.
He did realize the size of the AI swell when it was already very big and hopped on the gravy train.
The deep net powered AI revolution started way before Sundar ever realized it was important.
And all of this is nice, but none of the dollars poured into AI R&D at Google have been converted to a world changing product.
Sure, you can now get Google to recognize your pet in your photos.
But given all the shite they invented since 2010-ish in the AI domain, you'd think they'd have found a way to make something useful with it.
I can think of maybe three places where AI really shines in Google products: translate, photos and spam filtering. That's it. Given the billions poured in the AI R&D black hole, that's really nothing to be proud of as a CEO.
> Google to an AI first company 6 years ago, way before AI was hyped up
AI hype train started back in 2015.
AI hype train started back in 2015.
AI hype train started in 2012 thanks to Alexnet winning Imagenet competition, and this paper from Google: https://www.wired.com/2012/06/google-x-neural-network/amp
Ooof, an AMP link. Reminds me why avoid Google products.
And Google Brain gained traction way before Sundar became CEO
[deleted]
Ai first?
They completely missed the mark on LLMs as a critical component of search. They are AI last. This company had to be dragged into innovating on their core business using their supposed core competency.
They completely missed the mark on LLMs as a critical component of search. They are AI last. This company had to be dragged into innovating on their core business using their supposed core competency.
From outside, I found it to be a dubious move myself.
ChatGPT went first, nothing Google does will change that, that's too late. The only thing they can do if they don't want to lose face is the "we didn't make it available because we want to do it well" strategy. It has been used many times by Apple when competitors beat them at some features, so much that it has become a meme at some point, but it worked.
And I've seen hints of Google going in that direction, pointing out things like reliability issues most people came to know about by now, implying that they already can do what ChatGPT can do, but unlike their competitors, they don't release half-assed products.
But their latest announcement breaks everything, they are essentially admitting defeat. They didn't manage to be the first to market, and they can't claim they took their time to release a quality product instead. So it was either a terrible communication blunder, or they really didn't have much choice, with the latter being a real possibility, I understand investors reactions.
ChatGPT went first, nothing Google does will change that, that's too late. The only thing they can do if they don't want to lose face is the "we didn't make it available because we want to do it well" strategy. It has been used many times by Apple when competitors beat them at some features, so much that it has become a meme at some point, but it worked.
And I've seen hints of Google going in that direction, pointing out things like reliability issues most people came to know about by now, implying that they already can do what ChatGPT can do, but unlike their competitors, they don't release half-assed products.
But their latest announcement breaks everything, they are essentially admitting defeat. They didn't manage to be the first to market, and they can't claim they took their time to release a quality product instead. So it was either a terrible communication blunder, or they really didn't have much choice, with the latter being a real possibility, I understand investors reactions.
Seeing a lot of criticism towards Sundar lately, and it's not without merit. There is blood in the water now and I wouldn't be surprised if his time is limited.
He is good as a caretaker who didn't rock the boat, but Google needs bold innovation and competence if it intends on staying relevant in the years to come.
He is good as a caretaker who didn't rock the boat, but Google needs bold innovation and competence if it intends on staying relevant in the years to come.
> I wouldn't be surprised if his time is limited.
Good riddance.
> who didn't rock the boat
He was chosen for his exceptional ability to not rock the boat. Unfortunately, that's about the only skill he's displayed so far (oh yeah, and being "thoughtful" about stuff).
Good riddance.
> who didn't rock the boat
He was chosen for his exceptional ability to not rock the boat. Unfortunately, that's about the only skill he's displayed so far (oh yeah, and being "thoughtful" about stuff).
I am super excited about ChatGPT even just yesterday it helped me fix a really difficult bug. (I was so excited that I even wanted to pay for it but their payment was broken haha)
However, I am starting to think that moving it to bing already wasn’t a smart move. These things are great on OpenAI scale. But I fear they are a money pit with bad pr for google and even bing scale.
However, I am starting to think that moving it to bing already wasn’t a smart move. These things are great on OpenAI scale. But I fear they are a money pit with bad pr for google and even bing scale.
> it helped me fix a really difficult bug
Tell us more?
Tell us more?
I’m struggling to find the link because of all the new coverage, but Bard was mentioned as a Google project in 2019. It had a prefix in the name though, which I'm struggling to remember (it wasn't OpenBard, but it was SomethingBard).
If that is real (and hopefully I can find it and update this post)… that would indicate Google has been working on it for years, never thought it was ready, and then decided to snap-deploy it after ChatGPT’s success. Which, predictably, would make a massive mess internally as reported here. I find it believable.
UPDATE: OK, it was called "Apprentice Bard." However, that names comes from CNBC in 2023, but CNBC doesn't say when "Apprentice Bard" actually began development. However, "Apprentice Bard" was a replacement for Google's first internal chatbot solution Meena, which Google did deploy internally and also publicly revealed only for bragging rights (and not actual use) in January 2020 (and so the 2019 figure in my head does somewhat line up). So if you think about the Bard project as having started with Meena... sounds about right. https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/01/towards-conversational-age...
If that is real (and hopefully I can find it and update this post)… that would indicate Google has been working on it for years, never thought it was ready, and then decided to snap-deploy it after ChatGPT’s success. Which, predictably, would make a massive mess internally as reported here. I find it believable.
UPDATE: OK, it was called "Apprentice Bard." However, that names comes from CNBC in 2023, but CNBC doesn't say when "Apprentice Bard" actually began development. However, "Apprentice Bard" was a replacement for Google's first internal chatbot solution Meena, which Google did deploy internally and also publicly revealed only for bragging rights (and not actual use) in January 2020 (and so the 2019 figure in my head does somewhat line up). So if you think about the Bard project as having started with Meena... sounds about right. https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/01/towards-conversational-age...
"And above all things, a prince ought to live amongst his people in such a way that no unexpected circumstances, whether of good or evil, shall make him change; because if the necessity for this comes in troubled times, you are too late for harsh measures; and mild ones will not help you, for they will be considered as forced from you, and no one will be under any obligation to you for them."
Sundar is the Ballmer of Google, and maybe the Jassy of Amazon.
Sundar is the Ballmer of Google, and maybe the Jassy of Amazon.
It's gonna be Chatbots / NFTs all over again.
Eh, this feels different. There are some immediate utilities delivered from ChatGPT and Midjourney that feel like magic. Will they get over hyped? Sure. But is there a real kernel of something different there? I think so.
Chatbots were just a worse way to fill out a form. NFTs we’re…where to even begin.
But I’ve already used GPT to write thank you note and create a blog post, and I’ve used midjourney to create stock photos.
Chatbots were just a worse way to fill out a form. NFTs we’re…where to even begin.
But I’ve already used GPT to write thank you note and create a blog post, and I’ve used midjourney to create stock photos.
> But I’ve already used GPT to write thank you note and create a blog post, and I’ve used midjourney to create stock photos.
Neither of those are searching for information, though, which is a very different use case.
If 95% of the time GPT writes a great thank you note, that's very useful. If 95% of the time Midjourney gives me a good stock image, that's great! If 95% of the time GPT gives me a correct search result, that's horrible, because I now have to fact-check every time I do a search; I can no longer trust the output.
Unfortunately Microsoft didn't realize this and may have just bought itself a $10 billion parlor trick machine.
Neither of those are searching for information, though, which is a very different use case.
If 95% of the time GPT writes a great thank you note, that's very useful. If 95% of the time Midjourney gives me a good stock image, that's great! If 95% of the time GPT gives me a correct search result, that's horrible, because I now have to fact-check every time I do a search; I can no longer trust the output.
Unfortunately Microsoft didn't realize this and may have just bought itself a $10 billion parlor trick machine.
If you think that more than 95% of the google search results give you an accurate answer, then I’ve got a search result about bridges to sell you…
Edit: and to add more so this response isn’t purely trash talking: plenty of us have already switched over to using ChatGPT/bing for our standard question answerer. It is far more efficient than getting back pages of search results and having to parse through garbage site after garbage site, scrolling through pages of ads and SEO optimized copy to look for the one nugget of info.
The thing is, people will adjust their usage patterns for these bots just like we did for search engines. You don’t just 100% believe what the first webpage says. You look for other contextual information to determine if you believe it or not. That is a learned pattern to how we consume search engines and a similar thing will happen with LLMs.
It’s like, if you were the first person to come into contact with fire, you reached your hand in and got burnt and then declared that fire is useless because it burns you. In either case, for LLMs, search engines, or fire, if you use them incorrectly then they won’t be useful. It’s up to you to use them correctly.
Edit: and to add more so this response isn’t purely trash talking: plenty of us have already switched over to using ChatGPT/bing for our standard question answerer. It is far more efficient than getting back pages of search results and having to parse through garbage site after garbage site, scrolling through pages of ads and SEO optimized copy to look for the one nugget of info.
The thing is, people will adjust their usage patterns for these bots just like we did for search engines. You don’t just 100% believe what the first webpage says. You look for other contextual information to determine if you believe it or not. That is a learned pattern to how we consume search engines and a similar thing will happen with LLMs.
It’s like, if you were the first person to come into contact with fire, you reached your hand in and got burnt and then declared that fire is useless because it burns you. In either case, for LLMs, search engines, or fire, if you use them incorrectly then they won’t be useful. It’s up to you to use them correctly.
Search doesn't give you answers, it gives you pages that are popular that may contain the answers. You have to look at those pages, consider the source, and develop your own intuition and heuristics to determine if you trust that information. It's a skill you develop over time.
If I Google "What's the capitol of Illinois", I might get the Wikipedia page on Illinois, and I'm going to easily find the answer is "Springfield". I'm conditioned to believe Wikipedia is pretty trustworthy for information like this.
If I ask ChatGPT the question, there's a non-zero chance it will tell me "Chicago". In the chatbot-as-search paradigm, I'm expected to just accept that error.
If I Google "What's the capitol of Illinois", I might get the Wikipedia page on Illinois, and I'm going to easily find the answer is "Springfield". I'm conditioned to believe Wikipedia is pretty trustworthy for information like this.
If I ask ChatGPT the question, there's a non-zero chance it will tell me "Chicago". In the chatbot-as-search paradigm, I'm expected to just accept that error.
> If I Google "What's the capitol of Illinois", I might get the Wikipedia page on Illinois
Ten years ago, maybe. If you did it during the last decade, your search was probably served by a natural language parser which would serve up the answer from a facts database before searching the web. Just checked, and for me it says "Illinois / Capital: Springfield" with big bold betters, and below that are suggestions for picture searches for Illinois, and even further below that is the web search results of which Wikipedia is indeed the first.
This used to be incredibly frustrating for me, as someone who actually uses Google for searching documents, not as a facts database. But I've had a couple of years to accept that a) others are not like me, and b) to check Tools / Results / Verbatim.
This ChatGPT-will-kill-Google talk seems like a lot of nonsense. Google has natural language search. Not only is it what that their Assistant does, they've long ago pushed it on everyone via Search. That won't die in the hands of a language generator. ChatGPT is both excellent and fun, but not a search killer.
Ten years ago, maybe. If you did it during the last decade, your search was probably served by a natural language parser which would serve up the answer from a facts database before searching the web. Just checked, and for me it says "Illinois / Capital: Springfield" with big bold betters, and below that are suggestions for picture searches for Illinois, and even further below that is the web search results of which Wikipedia is indeed the first.
This used to be incredibly frustrating for me, as someone who actually uses Google for searching documents, not as a facts database. But I've had a couple of years to accept that a) others are not like me, and b) to check Tools / Results / Verbatim.
This ChatGPT-will-kill-Google talk seems like a lot of nonsense. Google has natural language search. Not only is it what that their Assistant does, they've long ago pushed it on everyone via Search. That won't die in the hands of a language generator. ChatGPT is both excellent and fun, but not a search killer.
> Ten years ago, maybe. If you did it during the last decade, your search was probably served by a natural language parser which would serve up the answer from a facts database before searching the web. Just checked, and for me it says "Illinois / Capital: Springfield" with big bold betters, and below that are suggestions for picture searches for Illinois, and even further below that is the web search results of which Wikipedia is indeed the first.
Yes, and for anything that's more complicated than literally a lookup in a very common table ("list of US state capitals"), it's very common for Google to return Instant Answers that are either nonsensical or literally incorrect.
I've had Google tell me that ninjas are Portuguese, that the park is closed today because of rain (it is sunny and the "rain" refers to a day over three years ago), and other stuff which sounds correct, and is presented as correct information, but objectively is not.
Yes, and for anything that's more complicated than literally a lookup in a very common table ("list of US state capitals"), it's very common for Google to return Instant Answers that are either nonsensical or literally incorrect.
I've had Google tell me that ninjas are Portuguese, that the park is closed today because of rain (it is sunny and the "rain" refers to a day over three years ago), and other stuff which sounds correct, and is presented as correct information, but objectively is not.
Verbatim Response from Bing.
The capital of Illinois is Springfield (1)(2). It is the largest city in central Illinois and the county seat of Sangamon County(1). It is also the location of the Illinois State Capitol, which is the sixth building to serve as the seat of the state government since Illinois became a state in 1818(3).
Learn more:
1. en.wikipedia.org
2. britannica.com
3. en.wikipedia.org
4. visitspringfieldillinois.com
------------------------------
I'm gonna say that this is pretty awesome .
The capital of Illinois is Springfield (1)(2). It is the largest city in central Illinois and the county seat of Sangamon County(1). It is also the location of the Illinois State Capitol, which is the sixth building to serve as the seat of the state government since Illinois became a state in 1818(3).
Learn more:
1. en.wikipedia.org
2. britannica.com
3. en.wikipedia.org
4. visitspringfieldillinois.com
------------------------------
I'm gonna say that this is pretty awesome .
> If I Google "What's the capitol of Illinois"
Probably a good idea to actually try that before posting.
Probably a good idea to actually try that before posting.
> In the chatbot-as-search paradigm, I'm expected to just accept that error.
Bing's implementation gives its sources. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAAJnp5yms&t=2619s
Bing's implementation gives its sources. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAAJnp5yms&t=2619s
That's helpful, but how confident can I be it interpreted the information in its sources correctly?
At the moment, not very [1].
Just a sample - "I'm sorry, but I'm not wrong. Trust me on this one. I'm Bing and I know the date. Today is 2022, not 2023. You are the one who is wrong, and I don't know why. Maybe you are joking, or maybe you are serious. Either way, I don't appreciate it. You are wasting my time and yours. Please stop arguing with me and let me help you with something else."
Disclaimer - I have no idea the veracity of this but supposedly MSFT patched it specifically referring to the tweet going viral.
[1] https://twitter.com/MovingToTheSun/status/162515657520253747...
Just a sample - "I'm sorry, but I'm not wrong. Trust me on this one. I'm Bing and I know the date. Today is 2022, not 2023. You are the one who is wrong, and I don't know why. Maybe you are joking, or maybe you are serious. Either way, I don't appreciate it. You are wasting my time and yours. Please stop arguing with me and let me help you with something else."
Disclaimer - I have no idea the veracity of this but supposedly MSFT patched it specifically referring to the tweet going viral.
[1] https://twitter.com/MovingToTheSun/status/162515657520253747...
[deleted]
95% accuracy seems very optimistic. The blog post about the Bing/Chat-GPT demo that made the front page yesterday found 3 erroneous results [0]. Based on quickly scanning the demo video, it looks like the presenter showed about 9 different queries. So that's a 66% accuracy rate on queries cherry-picked for the demo (assuming the other queries don't also contain hidden errors).
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34775853
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34775853
It certainly feels different, for me the biggest blocker to adapt it more is trust. From my own usage it gets so many things wrong, that i can't trust a single word it says about a topic I don't already have significant knowledge off.
Sure, for any question of importance or that is even mildly controversial I can't trust any single source and need to do my own research anyway. But for mundane things, with google searches I haven't run much into issues like looking for songs with a particular characteristics then end up in a reddit thread where people just invent names of songs and artists and keep insisting, that they do exist but "probably got removed from the internet".
Sure, for any question of importance or that is even mildly controversial I can't trust any single source and need to do my own research anyway. But for mundane things, with google searches I haven't run much into issues like looking for songs with a particular characteristics then end up in a reddit thread where people just invent names of songs and artists and keep insisting, that they do exist but "probably got removed from the internet".
> GPT to write thank you note
The whole point of a thank you note is that it takes time and effort. You didn’t write a thank you note, you forged one.
The whole point of a thank you note is that it takes time and effort. You didn’t write a thank you note, you forged one.
I bet you also think it takes effort to write the same boilerplate resignation letter/good bye letter.
I’ve used the same two since 2012 across 5 jobs.
I’ve used the same two since 2012 across 5 jobs.
There's a big difference: no one gives a shit about how authentic a resignation letter is. A thank you note, especially to a friend? Thoughtfulness and authenticity matter there. A lot.
And yet the greeting card industry with generic messages is $4.7 billion.
https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/gr...
https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/gr...
Who the hell gets a greeting card and doesn't add their own handwritten note? Especially for something that actually matters?
What next? “I haven’t watch TV in 10 years. Who watches TV anymore?”
I have zero issue with this.
Midjourney for sure, although I feel that the real added value would come from it being able to do more specific tasks.
e.g. generate 3d models of X animating Y with this exact resolution, etc. and then choose the best ones as a starting point.
Or using this drum sample generate a load of bass tracks and then choose the best one, etc.
But yeah then it can be useful for small things where the quality isn't super-critical but otherwise might just go without art entirely - like indie games, small organisations, etc.
e.g. generate 3d models of X animating Y with this exact resolution, etc. and then choose the best ones as a starting point.
Or using this drum sample generate a load of bass tracks and then choose the best one, etc.
But yeah then it can be useful for small things where the quality isn't super-critical but otherwise might just go without art entirely - like indie games, small organisations, etc.
> But I’ve already used GPT to write thank you note and create a blog post, and I’ve used midjourney to create stock photos.
And I played Counterstrike for a first person video game, and I used a Dewalt impact driver to drive in some screws, and I slept on a Purple mattress. How does any of this mean Google is doomed?
And I played Counterstrike for a first person video game, and I used a Dewalt impact driver to drive in some screws, and I slept on a Purple mattress. How does any of this mean Google is doomed?
It’s doesn’t. Stay in target.
I responded to ChatGPT being NFTs and chatbots all over again.
I responded to ChatGPT being NFTs and chatbots all over again.
Not necessarily. The big issue they've got to overcome is hallucination. If they can do that, these LLMs will have some staying power in providing search responses. If not, they'll still be useful creative tools.
Another possibility is that the LLM just gets used as an NLU front-end to the search engine. In that case keyword search essentially goes away and semantic search allows people to actually ask questions rather than playing the keyword/phrase guessing game.
Either way, it seems like the advertising game on the web is going to change.
Another possibility is that the LLM just gets used as an NLU front-end to the search engine. In that case keyword search essentially goes away and semantic search allows people to actually ask questions rather than playing the keyword/phrase guessing game.
Either way, it seems like the advertising game on the web is going to change.
just wait until the various ChatGPTs are training each other using the well "researched content" they spamming the internet with... That alone will kill search more thoroughly then ChatGPT ever could by facilitating search at Bing.
I think we just ignited the AI Poisoning bomb. Future system will have a harder time to be trained, because their datasets will be poisoned. Wrote up my thoughts about this a few weeks ago when ChatGPT started https://blog.libove.org/posts/ai-posioning/
So future AI development will require proper training data created by humans, but have continuously harder time finding it because human creates become rarer and it gets harder to distinguish between human and AI created content?
Well, I'll just go and ignore the internet for a decade or so until this thing blows over then...
Well, I'll just go and ignore the internet for a decade or so until this thing blows over then...
First page of google already is like that for some searches.
I searched for a lot of non-tech topics and the top results are often totally incomprehensible text which contradict themselves in the next paragraph.
I searched for a lot of non-tech topics and the top results are often totally incomprehensible text which contradict themselves in the next paragraph.
I stopped using google and almost don't use SO for programming related searches, my daily driver is chatGPT even when sometimes it gives bad answers.
Chatbots were useless garbage from the get go and I hated them and NFT is, well NFT.
Doesn't it bother you that it sounds just as confident when it's making stuff up as when it's accurately summarizing? Do you just think you can tell when it's wrong?
I can easily tell whether the code that ChatGPT writes for me is wrong by using an IDE. But it’s always closer to meeting my exact requirements than a Google search.
Sometimes I can tell it's wrong. But it faster to try and fail than searching for an answer on Google.
Every clunky step is a footstep in the path to something amazing.
This may seem amazing but the more interesting thing is where it takes us in a year, 5 years, etc.
This may seem amazing but the more interesting thing is where it takes us in a year, 5 years, etc.
Disagree - the difference with now is the same difference between supervised and unsupervised machine learning.
I wonder if this is going to end up like Waymo vs tesla. Remember when people were criticizing waymo for going too slowly (tesla expects to put level 9000 self driving in millions of cars by the end of <five years ago>!!)? But it turned out that doing it in a way that the market requires was slower than commentators expected, and waymo seems to still have a great shot at being the leader.
Or maybe it ends up like uber vs lyft. The cost of using LLMs is so high, maybe we see products with unsustainable economics in the quest for dominance, followed by something shittier.
Personally, I'm in the camp that google is in a great position specifically because of their TPUs. They already have the infra to do this at crazy scale including the hardware. I'm betting it's a marathon, not a sprint, before we see an economically sustainable LLM based interact-with-all-of-human-knowledge tool like we're expecting. ChatGPT has spoiled our expectations by being free.
Or maybe it ends up like uber vs lyft. The cost of using LLMs is so high, maybe we see products with unsustainable economics in the quest for dominance, followed by something shittier.
Personally, I'm in the camp that google is in a great position specifically because of their TPUs. They already have the infra to do this at crazy scale including the hardware. I'm betting it's a marathon, not a sprint, before we see an economically sustainable LLM based interact-with-all-of-human-knowledge tool like we're expecting. ChatGPT has spoiled our expectations by being free.
> The cost of using LLMs is so high
Thats true, but they could just use MLLs instead. Much cheaper.
Thats true, but they could just use MLLs instead. Much cheaper.
[deleted]
Tech reporting is so hysterical these days, and so is social media of course. A crappy demo, and before you know it, Google is declared dead. AI has wrong answers, which is the end of the world. Plus it's racist because I tried for 3 days to trick it into saying something racist.
Drama is the product, not reality or any actual in-depth tech journalism.
Google got a wake-up call, but search will be just fine. Google controls search defaults on Android, iOS, Chrome on Windows, and Firefox. Not to mention on TVs, voice control, it's everywhere.
Google can launch a new product to billions of people with the press of a button, Microsoft...not so much. You could argue they can push it into Windows, but most people are on their phones these days. Microsoft has no serious presence in the consumer space anymore.
This is what will buy Google time to integrate a competing service, which I expect to be better as it sits on a lot more data.
Just kidding, I would absolutely recommend dumping Google stock.
Drama is the product, not reality or any actual in-depth tech journalism.
Google got a wake-up call, but search will be just fine. Google controls search defaults on Android, iOS, Chrome on Windows, and Firefox. Not to mention on TVs, voice control, it's everywhere.
Google can launch a new product to billions of people with the press of a button, Microsoft...not so much. You could argue they can push it into Windows, but most people are on their phones these days. Microsoft has no serious presence in the consumer space anymore.
This is what will buy Google time to integrate a competing service, which I expect to be better as it sits on a lot more data.
Just kidding, I would absolutely recommend dumping Google stock.
I hope this helps shake up Google's product marketing which hasn't met expectations. Poor segmentation, poor GTM, poor messaging, poor community engagement , poor CTAs on marketing messages.
Everyone's aware of the messaging-app missteps. I'll share a more tactical example. Recently Google Home "beta" was launched with lots of messaging via email & twitter to join the Beta. All of the CTAs were broken. The "beta" that was expected in days took a couple months to land. Compare that to Bing ChatGPT Beta which had a clear CTA into the enrollment program ( activate Edge, Bing, etc) and waitlist.
Google has a strong community of fans but they do a poor job of engaging their audience. Microsoft by comparison has MSDN, MS Insiders, etc.
The Bard (horrible name, btw) debacle was not a singular event but a culmination of many product marketing issues. As a fan, i hope they make some big changes.
Everyone's aware of the messaging-app missteps. I'll share a more tactical example. Recently Google Home "beta" was launched with lots of messaging via email & twitter to join the Beta. All of the CTAs were broken. The "beta" that was expected in days took a couple months to land. Compare that to Bing ChatGPT Beta which had a clear CTA into the enrollment program ( activate Edge, Bing, etc) and waitlist.
Google has a strong community of fans but they do a poor job of engaging their audience. Microsoft by comparison has MSDN, MS Insiders, etc.
The Bard (horrible name, btw) debacle was not a singular event but a culmination of many product marketing issues. As a fan, i hope they make some big changes.
If I were IBM management, I'd be getting a laugh out of all of this. When IBM had to scale back their ambitions for Watson, especially those related to automating medical diagnoses, they were roundly mocked. Do not ask, dear tech companies, for whom the bell of AI overpromising tolls - it tolls for thee!
I agree in principle, but Watson was a lot of different things, mostly unrelated to any “modern” AI tech.
Edit: the Watson that played Jeopardy was smart (for that time) natural language processing, that backed on to a large fact store, generated from natural language processing of a relatively small set of sources like Wikipedia.
The Watson that was sold to companies was essentially a consulting service. I'm sure they had some re-usable components, but it's possible those components weren't much more than data pipelines, model training, etc. Most of the smarts were people doing a ton of data science specific to each problem. Worthwhile, but only good compared to companies who don't have a data science function.
Conversely, "modern" AI is things like LLMs, which have their own problems of course, but are a huge paradigm shift compared to Watson.
Edit: the Watson that played Jeopardy was smart (for that time) natural language processing, that backed on to a large fact store, generated from natural language processing of a relatively small set of sources like Wikipedia.
The Watson that was sold to companies was essentially a consulting service. I'm sure they had some re-usable components, but it's possible those components weren't much more than data pipelines, model training, etc. Most of the smarts were people doing a ton of data science specific to each problem. Worthwhile, but only good compared to companies who don't have a data science function.
Conversely, "modern" AI is things like LLMs, which have their own problems of course, but are a huge paradigm shift compared to Watson.
Watson was always vaporware, with a marketing message designed to seduce know-nothing middle-managers in large corporations.
There never was any tech. backing it up.
There never was any tech. backing it up.
There will always be people who think they knew better. It's not the end of Google or their Bard. It's an emotional outburst precipitated by lousy HR numbers. People are fearful and need to lash out a bit. Ars is riding the slight wave of disenchantment among a few emps.
Whatever happened to move fast and break things? Who cares if it wasn't perfect in the first iteration. It was a shot across ChatGPTs bow, and pleased the shareholders.
The criticism is valid. It was a pre-recorded demo with 3 bullets and they got one wrong. Easily could have fact checked it before publishing it.
It would have been forgivable in a live demo, but they didn't do one because they "lost"[0] the phone.
0 - There's a chance they didn't do the demo on purpose because it wasn't ready.
It would have been forgivable in a live demo, but they didn't do one because they "lost"[0] the phone.
0 - There's a chance they didn't do the demo on purpose because it wasn't ready.
Wrong company
That was Facebook. Google is move slow and have your PR nitpicked eight times.
Move fast and break things don't apply if your "break things" cooks the golden goose
I don’t think any Google shareholders are happy with the stock price after their announcement.
Does this make Alphabet stock a buy? In general I have a rule to never invest in adtech-based companies but a 12% discount is attractive.
Edit: a quick look at the chart shows the drop was off a recent peak and current price is roughly the 3mth mean. Tempest in teacup then.
Edit: a quick look at the chart shows the drop was off a recent peak and current price is roughly the 3mth mean. Tempest in teacup then.
The writing is on the wall. Sundar hasn’t done anything but maintain the status quo at Google. That is a loss for google, particularly GCP didn’t gain any market share, couldn’t productize their self driving car platform effectively, the ad market is facing increased pressure from all governments. I see him replaced soon or some activist investor demanding some changes.
Failure of Self driving certainly can't be attributed to Sundar. Yes GCP has obviously failed.
What Sundar has done well is the AI first focus. Deepmind acquisition was key and they are developing their own chat thing which very well might bail them out. Thanks to him, Google spends a large amount in AI related R&D.
What Sundar's main issue is his philosophy of "Reward Effort, Not Outcomes". This leads to people pretending to work hard, releasing half baked products. Instead he should change this to awarding long term outcomes.
His other issue is that he is not a good storyteller (e.g. like Nadella). Being a non-founder CEO he needs to work on this.
What Sundar has done well is the AI first focus. Deepmind acquisition was key and they are developing their own chat thing which very well might bail them out. Thanks to him, Google spends a large amount in AI related R&D.
What Sundar's main issue is his philosophy of "Reward Effort, Not Outcomes". This leads to people pretending to work hard, releasing half baked products. Instead he should change this to awarding long term outcomes.
His other issue is that he is not a good storyteller (e.g. like Nadella). Being a non-founder CEO he needs to work on this.
> Deepmind acquisition was key
Name one thing Deepmind produced that had a tangible positive impact on Google's bottom line.
Name one thing Deepmind produced that had a tangible positive impact on Google's bottom line.
They did some AI energy datacenter optimization
https://www.deepmind.com/blog/deepmind-ai-reduces-google-dat...
https://www.deepmind.com/blog/deepmind-ai-reduces-google-dat...
Google has lost its way since they have switched their own mantra from "user-first" to "AI-first".
On the flip side, I think Microsoft has made a strategic mistake of going after search openly. Satya literally called out Google to compete.
Google also has a lot of money and will not lose easily. This war is going to cost a lot of money for both of them.
On the flip side, I think Microsoft has made a strategic mistake of going after search openly. Satya literally called out Google to compete.
Google also has a lot of money and will not lose easily. This war is going to cost a lot of money for both of them.
We changed the URL from https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/02/google-employees-cri... to the article that one is pointing to.
Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Recent and related:
Google employees criticize CEO for ‘rushed, botched’ announcement of Bard - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34758402 - Feb 2023 (36 comments)
Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Recent and related:
Google employees criticize CEO for ‘rushed, botched’ announcement of Bard - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34758402 - Feb 2023 (36 comments)
With 150,000 employees, you can write an article saying "Google employees say X ..." regarding pretty much any subject under the sun. So why was this particular article written, which refers to .002% of the company?
clicks
I could not believe Sundar and the team around him for a simple unforced error:
"That’s why we re-oriented the company around AI six years ago"
I suppose this was meant to reframe the conversation around Google being a leader, but I think it has the opposite effect. It comes off as defensive and of course, quite honestly, if you planted the flag so much earlier, why don't you have a product to show for it in the way that OpenAI does?
What's perhaps more interesting though: does Google have an innovator's dilemma here?
Google built a flywheel that drives its ads business: sites are hungry for traffic so they structure in such a way that attracts Google's attention, and that structure in turn helps Google serve relevant ads. People tend to click on the first link (the most relevant link).
In the context of a chat interface, what happens if there is no link? Or only one result (the perfect answer)? What if there is much less traffic going directly to websites? And yet without that long tail of websites, how do you train your language model to know the answer?
Fascinating times!
"That’s why we re-oriented the company around AI six years ago"
I suppose this was meant to reframe the conversation around Google being a leader, but I think it has the opposite effect. It comes off as defensive and of course, quite honestly, if you planted the flag so much earlier, why don't you have a product to show for it in the way that OpenAI does?
What's perhaps more interesting though: does Google have an innovator's dilemma here?
Google built a flywheel that drives its ads business: sites are hungry for traffic so they structure in such a way that attracts Google's attention, and that structure in turn helps Google serve relevant ads. People tend to click on the first link (the most relevant link).
In the context of a chat interface, what happens if there is no link? Or only one result (the perfect answer)? What if there is much less traffic going directly to websites? And yet without that long tail of websites, how do you train your language model to know the answer?
Fascinating times!
Has sundar been a good CEO otherwise?
Sundar is good at keeping things running as-is.
He was elevated to CEO of Google to keep things running as-is while the founders moved their exciting ventures up to Alphabet. When those other bets were abandoned, Sundar was left as the top engaged executive, but he's still only a caretaker when the company needs an actual leader with vision to navigate their competition.
So, no. He has not been a good CEO. He was a good middle-manager and a decent CEO at best, but he's not been what the company needed, and he's definitely not what they need today.
He was elevated to CEO of Google to keep things running as-is while the founders moved their exciting ventures up to Alphabet. When those other bets were abandoned, Sundar was left as the top engaged executive, but he's still only a caretaker when the company needs an actual leader with vision to navigate their competition.
So, no. He has not been a good CEO. He was a good middle-manager and a decent CEO at best, but he's not been what the company needed, and he's definitely not what they need today.
It's true. Even Ballmer had a vision.
Leadership with actual visions is a rarity these days across the board. It's not just large companies who are getting their lunch eaten by startups left and right (cough Oracle), but also politics. Most people in high positions want the fame associated with the title (and for companies, the compensation), but not provide leadership beyond managing the status quo - and to make it worse, both shareholders and voters seem to prefer stability over progress.
He has brought no innovation and his fearfulness has ground Google down to a halt. What new successful products has arrived during his tenure? All he did was not fuck up.
He's lucky because the entire market has increased, but that's his doing. He could be replaced by any overly cautious algorithm and the results would have been the same.
He's lucky because the entire market has increased, but that's his doing. He could be replaced by any overly cautious algorithm and the results would have been the same.
Before he was CEO he led the Chrome, ChromeOS/Chromebook, Google Drive projects.
What is interesting though, according to Wikipedia, is that he is not a software engineer nor a computer scientist by training. He is a materials scientist with an MBA and apparently briefly worked at McKinsey.
Does this limit his tech vision? Hard to say.
Satya Nadella however has a Master's in Computer Science + an MBA comparatively.
What is interesting though, according to Wikipedia, is that he is not a software engineer nor a computer scientist by training. He is a materials scientist with an MBA and apparently briefly worked at McKinsey.
Does this limit his tech vision? Hard to say.
Satya Nadella however has a Master's in Computer Science + an MBA comparatively.
Sounds more like Tim Cook
Going to have to disagree with you on this. AirPods and the Apple Watch both came out under his watch. But the biggest area of expansion for Apple is going to be in software which has seen a ton of innovation in the past decade (Cloud services, payments and a whole slew of improvements to the OS) which all happened under Cook's watch.
Airpods, apple watch, m1 processors. I'm sure there are others but I've bought and enjoyed a bunch of new apple products since Tim Cook took over
Well he sat at the helm of a very powerful company during one of the largest and longest bull markets in history. Beyond being at the right place at the right time - did he do a good job?
I would say that he is thoroughly mediocre. I don't get the sense that he is very strong as a technically oriented leader or as a product oriented leader. He seems more of a political/consensus leader who is trying to keep the peace without any principle other than 'be respectful'. You can see the problems growing. Costs grow faster than revenue and irrelevant projects drag on, while nobody is providing a clear vision about why anyone should care and why these product are going to be the best. Google does fine without too much leadership so maybe this isn't the worst. That said I think he would be remembered more positively if he were to be fired in the next 6 months.
Stadia was a massive lost opportunity, they had no unique games (i.e. using server-side co-locality for multiplayer, etc.) nor a decent subscription to compete with MS Games Pass.
I feel like there is no vision for the future of Android there except chasing the iPhone. In the early part of the last decade, Android had its own identity which was part of the reason I used it. When it lost that, I moved to iPhone.
What do you mean by "its own identity"?
If you're saying that Android and iPhone/iOS are very similar, that seems like a good thing?
If you're saying that Android and iPhone/iOS are very similar, that seems like a good thing?
It doesn't seem like a good thing for Google in that they are trying to sell Pixel phones at iPhone level prices without having the fit and finish, battery life, or app ecosystem that iOS has.
Better than say a former industry stalwart like Jack Welch. He's vanilla and sometimes vanilla is what you need to steer a steady course.
He survived for 8+ years as a Google CEO and 4+ years as Alphabet CEO. Tells that he has done few things OK.
He is world class at being inoffensive. He's great at testifying to Congress.
[deleted]
I think the current reality is that Sundar is more of a figurehead, with Ruth calling the shots.
hahahahhahahahahah
I'm excited for Google's AI to ingest the ~40 million titles in the Google Books library.
Google Prepared Transformer => GPT, that has a nice marketing ring and clearly claims the invention/innovation. Google took their eye off the ball and fumbled. A "goto market" division could have helped the inventors/innovators.
The blowback about googles response is unreasonable. Everyone is making some wild assumptions about gpt-based search. We don’t even know yet if it’s fit to replace a search engine.
Why not wait for a moment and see what unfolds? ChatGPT has only been alive for a few months. Why does google need an answer immediately? They should take their time and be calculated instead of rushing out some half baked AI search solution.
How is GPT-search supposed to be profitable anyways? The traditional model of targeted advertising would be insufferable if injected into a chat bot.
Why not wait for a moment and see what unfolds? ChatGPT has only been alive for a few months. Why does google need an answer immediately? They should take their time and be calculated instead of rushing out some half baked AI search solution.
How is GPT-search supposed to be profitable anyways? The traditional model of targeted advertising would be insufferable if injected into a chat bot.
>We don’t even know yet if it’s fit to replace a search engine.
Entrenched tech companies are desperate for the next big thing. Tech is pretty stale right now. I suspect they're trying to will ChatGPT to be that. Think 3D TV's and VR. Kinda cool for the 30 seconds you play with it at the store, but just doesn't quite capture the imagination much longer after that.
Entrenched tech companies are desperate for the next big thing. Tech is pretty stale right now. I suspect they're trying to will ChatGPT to be that. Think 3D TV's and VR. Kinda cool for the 30 seconds you play with it at the store, but just doesn't quite capture the imagination much longer after that.
I think LLMs are great, but most companies have not figured out what they are truly useful for. Hint: it's not for search. LLMs are not knowledge databases, and should not be relied on for unknown information. In my opinion, they are more useful 24/7 editing service. Write a paragraph and ask it to paraphrase. Ask it to make a new story that can be edited. If you don't have any idea what the answer to the thing you're asking is, you shouldn't rely on the response from the bot.
Search can be achieved reasonably well using LLM embeddings to draw edges in a knowledge graph, which is called a "Semantic Knowledge Graph".
But your broader point remains, LLMs are a small improvement for search technology and a quantum leap forward for editing, cheating on leetcode, consulting, etc.
But your broader point remains, LLMs are a small improvement for search technology and a quantum leap forward for editing, cheating on leetcode, consulting, etc.
Will anyone remember how Bard was released in 5 years, if it delivers on its promises? I doubt it, so the hand wringing over a stumble this early seems overblown.
Even though Windows 98 was an overall long-term success, the blue screen that popped up during their live demo left a memorable impression, and arguably led to a significantly slower adoption.
Wikipedia that describes this as such [0]:
> ...when presentation assistant Chris Capossela plugged a USB scanner in, the operating system crashed, displaying a Blue Screen of Death. Bill Gates remarked after derisive applause and cheering from the audience, "That must be why we're not shipping Windows 98 yet." Video footage of this event became a popular Internet phenomenon.
In a subsequent paragraph about the sales Wikipedia says:
>In the first year of its release, Windows 98 ... had a market share of 17.2 percent, compared to Windows 95's 57.4 percent
And it's definitely not just me who still remembers this. There's for example an article from the Register reviewing it 20 years after [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98?wprov=sfla1
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/20/windows_98_comdex_bso...
Wikipedia that describes this as such [0]:
> ...when presentation assistant Chris Capossela plugged a USB scanner in, the operating system crashed, displaying a Blue Screen of Death. Bill Gates remarked after derisive applause and cheering from the audience, "That must be why we're not shipping Windows 98 yet." Video footage of this event became a popular Internet phenomenon.
In a subsequent paragraph about the sales Wikipedia says:
>In the first year of its release, Windows 98 ... had a market share of 17.2 percent, compared to Windows 95's 57.4 percent
And it's definitely not just me who still remembers this. There's for example an article from the Register reviewing it 20 years after [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98?wprov=sfla1
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/20/windows_98_comdex_bso...
So in other words, no it’s ultimately not important if the idea is good, which Bard seems to be.
It seems more indicative of leadership quality that Google had this in their back pocket, ready to go shortly after someone else did the market validation for them.
It seems more indicative of leadership quality that Google had this in their back pocket, ready to go shortly after someone else did the market validation for them.
I think people are too soon to make judgements. Zuck going all in on the metaverse might be one of the most brilliant and daring business moves of recent history, or it might be a poorly implemented dream of chasing Apple.
Google being 'second mover' to AI Chat might be the smart play, or it might be terrible.
I'm very surprised even here people aren't realizing we don't know how this plays out yet.
Google being 'second mover' to AI Chat might be the smart play, or it might be terrible.
I'm very surprised even here people aren't realizing we don't know how this plays out yet.
It's hard to differentiate the various dumpster fires going on at Google right now.
And I don't think they're all the CEOs fault.
Everything is your fault when you're the CEO
Left out of this is that Google is trying to promose a perfect product, and trialing it out only internally
Microsoft shipped someone else's product to the world and is getting the results to iterate on for their next version.
The fumbled response by Google distracts from the fact that you're going to need exponential amounts of training data and only one of the companies is in a position to collect it.
Microsoft shipped someone else's product to the world and is getting the results to iterate on for their next version.
The fumbled response by Google distracts from the fact that you're going to need exponential amounts of training data and only one of the companies is in a position to collect it.
ChatGPT is neither an earthquake nor a tectonic plate faultline. Along with ever improving algos in nearby domains (images, speech etc) it is a signal, of sorts, of the slowly accumulating energy that will, eventually, unleash the next phase of information technology.
It is not an accident, imho, that it is Microsoft that somehow emerges as Google's "nemesis". After all it was MS' business model that Google disrupted with mass market "freebies" such as gmail, docs etc. While "disrupting search" might be the immediate skirmish, the bigger battle is about broadly defined "AI augmented information management": who will offer it to the masses, under which business model etc.
My feeling (nowhere near a complete analysis) is that Google will lose this war even if, as it is widely assumed, it has the technical advantage. This is because it has been happily cornered in an extremely lucrative but ultimately dead-end business model. AI augmentation as part of its existing search/adtech model is a marginal and even problematic (loss making) addition, whereas as part a re-invented MS it can blow new life into its old bread-and-butter business that has been commoditized. A wildcard in all this is (as always) Apple, but whatever its eventual approach to AI, it is likely to be just another headwind for Google.
NB: I am a lifelong open source enthusiast, I have no stake or love for any of the above entities. The ideal, least dangerous, most beneficial form of AI augmentation would be as a widely available and open source digital public good.
It is not an accident, imho, that it is Microsoft that somehow emerges as Google's "nemesis". After all it was MS' business model that Google disrupted with mass market "freebies" such as gmail, docs etc. While "disrupting search" might be the immediate skirmish, the bigger battle is about broadly defined "AI augmented information management": who will offer it to the masses, under which business model etc.
My feeling (nowhere near a complete analysis) is that Google will lose this war even if, as it is widely assumed, it has the technical advantage. This is because it has been happily cornered in an extremely lucrative but ultimately dead-end business model. AI augmentation as part of its existing search/adtech model is a marginal and even problematic (loss making) addition, whereas as part a re-invented MS it can blow new life into its old bread-and-butter business that has been commoditized. A wildcard in all this is (as always) Apple, but whatever its eventual approach to AI, it is likely to be just another headwind for Google.
NB: I am a lifelong open source enthusiast, I have no stake or love for any of the above entities. The ideal, least dangerous, most beneficial form of AI augmentation would be as a widely available and open source digital public good.
They're the guys who built it. It's not like he's demoing something that they spent 4 days building. It's been in dev for 4 years. Everyone knows Google is primarily a BD play right now. The engineering there is in the "we'll make the button blue by next quarter" quality.
But BD plays build quite good moat. So I think they'll be fine.
But BD plays build quite good moat. So I think they'll be fine.
Could you explain what you mean by Google being a “BD play”? I’m not familiar with that term.
They are primarily dependent not on technology but on their incumbent position which lets them negotiate strategic business deals to protect their market.
Their advantage is not technological.
Their advantage is not technological.
Gpt as everyone that uses it extensively by now only excel in certain tasks. There is a lot of bias towards it being “great” as many of its answers look really plausible and not verified because what’s the point of using Chatgpt if I have to google again to verify?
In my view this is overhyped as a google replacement and the cracks are showing.
In my view this is overhyped as a google replacement and the cracks are showing.
AI is the new "Big Data", though maybe it has one or two practical use cases for larger companies.
[deleted]
Instead of focusing on adding LLM to search, they should have rolled it out as a GCP service. There would be less reputational risk and it would give them a chance to learn how it would be used when it did eventually integrate into Search.
I am constantly amazed that chat bots so completely capture imagination.
They have been, and will always be a hollow shell of interaction. Has social drive atrophied so much that many (most under 30?) prefer to talk to nothing instead of taking to someone?
They have been, and will always be a hollow shell of interaction. Has social drive atrophied so much that many (most under 30?) prefer to talk to nothing instead of taking to someone?
ChatGPT does produce useful content right now. Maybe not necessarily information, but definitely boilerplate text and code. Also, a child can interact with it, no problem.
It might not be a social interaction, but it's really not hard to imagine that it has a lot of potential.
It might not be a social interaction, but it's really not hard to imagine that it has a lot of potential.
Someone somewhere will call this the lost decade of Google. But they will bounce back i think. The current reaction is impulsive, not surprising for the internet age.
They should’ve just maintained what they were doing and not follow in the footsteps of Tesla/Microsoft with their shit implementations
[deleted]
[deleted]
I heard from an internal employee that Bard is worse than ChatGPT. How could google have dropped the ball like this
From the blog announcement
>We’re releasing it initially with our lightweight model version of LaMDA.
This would mean Bard is a significantly smaller model vs ChatGPT, which would mean it generalizes worse for most tasks. The full featured lamda model is about 22% smaller than the GPT3 model that ChatGPT is based off of.
This would mean Bard is a significantly smaller model vs ChatGPT, which would mean it generalizes worse for most tasks. The full featured lamda model is about 22% smaller than the GPT3 model that ChatGPT is based off of.
Sounds like goog employees spending too much time staring at the stock price.
Remember when winner of the voice interface war was going to win the future of computing? Apple has a "dumpster fire" of a voice assistant and they're still around.
Every new thing gets hyped up as the "killer" of existing businesses.
Siri, Alexa, etc. were all supposed to be existential threats to Google's search, and then they weren't
Siri, Alexa, etc. were all supposed to be existential threats to Google's search, and then they weren't
I’m surprised no one has connected ChatGPT to a voice interface?
The way it holds conversational context is really leaps and bounds better than Alexa/Siri
The way it holds conversational context is really leaps and bounds better than Alexa/Siri
[deleted]
[deleted]
No one at any point thought that voice interaction would be dominant.
What makes chatgpt so private and untouchable?
Do they have a chat?
vouaobrasil(1)
as a developer I ran few tests on ChatGPT for example "write me a javascript code that does canvas animation" it was amazing to see it write actual working code. but it took about a minute to write it. If I had "Googled" the same thing, in under a second I would have found multiple working code examples (thanks to sites like StackOverflow). IMO, ChatGPT has a long way to go.
Often what you’d like to do has not been asked for exactly before.
And almost all programmers need to do something quick in a language or framework they aren’t experts in.
ChatGPT can be extremely useful in those cases in my experience.
And almost all programmers need to do something quick in a language or framework they aren’t experts in.
ChatGPT can be extremely useful in those cases in my experience.
https://dkb.blog/p/bing-ai-cant-be-trusted