5 ms·

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 lo

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.

cutenewt 4y ago
One CEO (and company) has joy. The other one does not. I know which one I'd rather join.
- AceJohnny2 4y ago
  At this point, I'm curious which you think is which.
  - cheeze 4y ago
    I'm with you. I honestly have no idea which one the commenter is talking about.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - gregw134 4y ago
      Microsoft has a chance at eating Google's lunch. There's definitely no joy about that at Google.
      - ignoramous 4y ago
        Google ate Microsoft's mission statement (a computer on every desk) for breakfast (with Android). I wonder what joy they feel about that.
      - glass3 4y ago
        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.
  - cutenewt 4y ago
    gregw134 nailed it
    - AceJohnny2 4y ago
      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.
bioemerl 4y ago
> 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.
- visarga 4y ago
  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.
- amf12 4y ago
  > 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.
habitue 4y ago
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.
O1111OOO 4y ago
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.
- visarga 4y ago
  bingGPT getting angry was a treat to see. Wow! It will be impossible not to anthropomorphise.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > 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"
vineyardmike 4y ago
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”.
- brandall10 4y ago
  "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.
  - flakeoil 4y ago
    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.
    - brandall10 4y ago
      As I said, it can be ancillary to the current experience.
    - fedorareis 4y ago
      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
nus07 4y ago
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.
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > 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.
hintymad 4y ago
> 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
- visarga 4y ago
  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.
- deltree7 4y ago
  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
  - not2b 4y ago
    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.
    - deltree7 4y ago
      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
- no_butterscotch 4y ago
  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.

cutenewt 4y ago

One CEO (and company) has joy. The other one does not. I know which one I'd rather join.

AceJohnny2 4y ago
At this point, I'm curious which you think is which.
- cheeze 4y ago
  I'm with you. I honestly have no idea which one the commenter is talking about.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gregw134 4y ago
    Microsoft has a chance at eating Google's lunch. There's definitely no joy about that at Google.
    - ignoramous 4y ago
      Google ate Microsoft's mission statement (a computer on every desk) for breakfast (with Android). I wonder what joy they feel about that.
    - glass3 4y ago
      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.
- cutenewt 4y ago
  gregw134 nailed it
  - AceJohnny2 4y ago
    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.

bioemerl 4y ago

> 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.

visarga 4y ago
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.
amf12 4y ago
> 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.

habitue 4y ago

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.

O1111OOO 4y ago

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.

visarga 4y ago
bingGPT getting angry was a treat to see. Wow! It will be impossible not to anthropomorphise.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > 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"

vineyardmike 4y ago

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”.

brandall10 4y ago
"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.
- flakeoil 4y ago
  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.
  - brandall10 4y ago
    As I said, it can be ancillary to the current experience.
  - fedorareis 4y ago
    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

nus07 4y ago

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.

ur-whale 4y ago
> 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.

hintymad 4y ago

> 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

visarga 4y ago
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.
deltree7 4y ago
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
- not2b 4y ago
  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.
  - deltree7 4y ago
    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
no_butterscotch 4y ago
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.