3 ms·

The memo sounds like spin because it is. The surface argument is equivalent to arguing that no one could sell closed source software because open source exists,

by yyyk 3y ago

The memo sounds like spin because it is. The surface argument is equivalent to arguing that no one could sell closed source software because open source exists, and that open source must also be commodotized (oddly, Apple and Microsoft are doing just fine). The implied argument is that Google Research was doing fine giving away their trade secrets and giving negative value to Google because it was going to happen anyway and the secrets are financially worthless anyhow. Nonsense. There are moats if one is willing to look for them. After all, productizing is a very different thing from an academic comparison. ChatGPT is way out there _as a product_, while open efforts are at 0% on this. You can't lock down a technology*, but you can lock down an ecosystem, a product or hardware. OpenAI can create an API ecosystem which will be difficult to take down. They can try to make custom hardware to make their models really cheap to run. Monopoly? Nah. This won't happen. But they could make some money - and reduce the value of Google's search monopoly. * Barring software patents which fortunately aren't yet at play. EDIT: I'll give the memo a virtual point for identifying Meta (Facebook) as a competitor who could profit by using current OSS efforts. But otherwise it's just spin.

burnished 3y ago
How do you distinguish between an opinion you disagree with and 'spin'?
- yyyk 3y ago
  A) When IMHO the underlying argument is not quite honest. B) When it comes from an interested party. C) When there's enough of A and B that I feel it's intentional. The underlying argument here would apply to some extremely profitable existing closed source software, so it's obviously not complete. Even closed source software which is strictly inferior manages to find some very profitable moats. As for the source, it comes from Google Research, which has done a very poor job of using their knowledge to benefit Google. The article downplays the failures (we couldn't have done anything differently, but it doesn't matter anyway since Open Source will consume all!), and doesn't even think about productization. The latter does give me a little bit of doubt: the article could also be emblematic of Google Research's failures and not 100% spin...
  - burnished 3y ago
    Thank you for the cogent response. My reading was that this was personal opinion of a researcher, it seems like you are reading the deficiencies you note as intentional omissions whereas I am reading them as simple flaws. Does it change your perspective that this was aimed at a private audience? To me it came off as a blanket admission that they were not doing the right thing and needed to do something different to be successful. That may be the core difference, I read it as blame accepting whereas you read it as blame deflecting.
    - yyyk 3y ago
      >Does it change your perspective that this was aimed at a private audience? Was it? Someone leaked the article to the press. Per the article, someone granted permission to publish the leak. I'm assuming that someone had standing to give said permission, either from Google Research or being the author. I can see a scenario when someone intentionally 'leaks' in order to put something in the public sphere without attribution. Perhaps I'm too uncharitable or too cynical. Still, I find the underlying argument too simplistic. At $WORK, we have some $SOFTWARE that certain $CLIENTS run on Windows Server. It would be cheaper if they ran it on Linux. I have good confidence it would work the same, and we could test with the typical deployment patterns. The typical $CLIENT attitude is to not even think about this ("We don't have anyone to manage a Linux deployment, and $$client of $CLIENT wouldn't even hear of Linux, we barely got a current deployment plan approved"). Arguing that Open Source Linux could do everything that Windows Server can or that Linux development speed is higher wouldn't do anything to change their mind - it's based on other factors, and even if we finally got past that there would be ROI to consider (compared to other things that could be done in the same time).
endorphine 3y ago
What does "spin" mean?

by yyyk 3y ago

burnished 3y ago

How do you distinguish between an opinion you disagree with and 'spin'?

yyyk 3y ago
A) When IMHO the underlying argument is not quite honest. B) When it comes from an interested party. C) When there's enough of A and B that I feel it's intentional. The underlying argument here would apply to some extremely profitable existing closed source software, so it's obviously not complete. Even closed source software which is strictly inferior manages to find some very profitable moats. As for the source, it comes from Google Research, which has done a very poor job of using their knowledge to benefit Google. The article downplays the failures (we couldn't have done anything differently, but it doesn't matter anyway since Open Source will consume all!), and doesn't even think about productization. The latter does give me a little bit of doubt: the article could also be emblematic of Google Research's failures and not 100% spin...
- burnished 3y ago
  Thank you for the cogent response. My reading was that this was personal opinion of a researcher, it seems like you are reading the deficiencies you note as intentional omissions whereas I am reading them as simple flaws. Does it change your perspective that this was aimed at a private audience? To me it came off as a blanket admission that they were not doing the right thing and needed to do something different to be successful. That may be the core difference, I read it as blame accepting whereas you read it as blame deflecting.
  - yyyk 3y ago
    >Does it change your perspective that this was aimed at a private audience? Was it? Someone leaked the article to the press. Per the article, someone granted permission to publish the leak. I'm assuming that someone had standing to give said permission, either from Google Research or being the author. I can see a scenario when someone intentionally 'leaks' in order to put something in the public sphere without attribution. Perhaps I'm too uncharitable or too cynical. Still, I find the underlying argument too simplistic. At $WORK, we have some $SOFTWARE that certain $CLIENTS run on Windows Server. It would be cheaper if they ran it on Linux. I have good confidence it would work the same, and we could test with the typical deployment patterns. The typical $CLIENT attitude is to not even think about this ("We don't have anyone to manage a Linux deployment, and $$client of $CLIENT wouldn't even hear of Linux, we barely got a current deployment plan approved"). Arguing that Open Source Linux could do everything that Windows Server can or that Linux development speed is higher wouldn't do anything to change their mind - it's based on other factors, and even if we finally got past that there would be ROI to consider (compared to other things that could be done in the same time).

endorphine 3y ago

What does "spin" mean?