4 ms·
I've never worked at Google Brain, but I've been a research manager in tech for a decade, and nothing here seems surprising to me. It discusses the archetype of
by protastus 3y ago
I've never worked at Google Brain, but I've been a research manager in tech for a decade, and nothing here seems surprising to me. It discusses the archetype of the well funded industry lab that is too academic and ultimately winds down.
The post makes sensible but generic statements based on the view of an IC. It tries to work back from the conclusion (Google struggles to move academic research into product) and produces plausible but hardly definitive explanations, with no ranking, primarily because there's no discussion of the thinking, actions and promises made at the executive level that kept the lab funded for all these years.
- brilee 3y agoYou're right that I don't know enough as an IC to comment on the thinking, actions, and promises at the exec level that kept Brain funded. But even if I did, to the GP's point, I would not talk about that part at all. I'm curious about your perspective as a research manager in tech - would you be willing to chat privately?
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> But even if I did, to the GP's point, I would not talk about that part at all. Even if you were one of said executives, who was moving to a higher-level job at another company, and the company was interviewing you as to the reasoning behind decisions made in your previous job?