4 ms·

Google apologists love telling us how Google invented the damn transformers. But everyone on the original team have their own startups, and most left long ago.

Google apologists love telling us how Google invented the damn transformers. But everyone on the original team have their own startups, and most left long ago. Can Google still brag about having the best people or innovation environment?

bottlepalm 3y ago
It sounds like a great place for young devs to cut their teeth. There are probably lots of 'old' devs there that are comfortable to rest and vest while passing their knowledge down to the younglings.
- candiodari 3y ago
  It seems that the problem was not that these people didn't WANT to create products for Google, it's that they tried and failed. Obviously the reason they failed wasn't that they couldn't make their products work. So that leaves that they weren't allowed to create these products, which is the same as saying that they were forced to work on other people's ideas ... ideas that mostly didn't pan out. Or that Google didn't pay them what they were worth (by the ultracapitalist definition of worth: you're worth what someone is willing to pay). Perhaps a combination of both: that they were forced to work on unsuccessful products and couldn't get raises/promotions as a result of that. That management had it's own ideas they really, really, really needed to succeed, and when it failed they dragged a lot of people down with them. I must say, that sounds exactly like what you'd find happening in large companies.
  - epups 3y ago
    It's possible that Google simply couldn't afford them anymore. At these unicorns they are leading, their current and projected net worth is so huge that even a company like Google might not be able to justify paying it without serious disruption. I always thought that's what Alphabet was for, to be honest. Trying to keep a sort of ecosystem of acquisitions and Google spin-off startups with direct Google investment.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      or they didn't create anything useful since that paper, and google decided not to bid on them.
more_corn 3y ago
I mean, they hired the best people. Google just weren’t able to provide an environment where the best people were able to turn their ideas into products.
- belter 3y ago
  I find the possibility this statement is true, extraordinary in itself, and research material for at least five Phds in Corporate Management and Governance.
  - BoxFour 3y ago
    I find it’s not that complicated, particularly if you've had exposure to these firms: 1) They exhibit an exceptionally risk-averse stance from a legal standpoint. Consequently, matters with even the slightest chance of legal repercussions (usually revolving around privacy) undergo an exhaustive examination that can take years. Often things get killed just because of the spectre of legal/privacy review. 2) Gaining unanimous agreement within the company for a particular course of action, especially necessary for projects demanding substantial resources, can truly be likened to an arduous Sisyphean endeavor. 3) Anything that doesn't immediately and unequivocally exhibit the potential to evolve into a multi-billion dollar industry is met with significant doubt.
    - bradneuberg 3y ago
      You’ve exactly hit the nail on the head. I’ve been in larger companies and these 3 dynamics explain well why they have trouble innovating.
    - CMCDragonkai 3y ago
      It's really simple. It's a big ship with a small rudder. And maybe you're the best but you're just one guy. There's hundreds of thousands of people invested in the ship, you can try to push the rudder but you're going to hit resistance no matter what.
- ksey3 3y ago
o1y32 3y ago
Whether those authors are still at Google is irrelevant. As long as Google is still hiring the best people, you should expect to see work that has just the same quality and impact, just produced by a new team. Although I genuinely don't know if this is still true.
- sorokod 3y ago
  Fungible! You say that best researchers are fungible - why would that be true?
- kkzz99 3y ago
  But this perfectly illustrates that just having the "best people" doesn't mean anything as long as the policies in the company doesn't allow for the innovation AND execution into products.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > As long as Google is still hiring the best people ... When has that ever been the case? Just because some company says "We do X", you shouldn't fall for the trap of believing them. All of the FAANG companies say the same thing, as do quite a few non-FAANG companies.
  - braza 3y ago
    > When has that ever been the case? Not the OP, but let me reframe the point here: I do not dare to say that Google hire the best; but what they goes quite close to get the top talent from some demographics and with certain skills and give the resources, some amount of freedom, and guidance and then collect the astonishing research results. Personally I do not think that Google Brain has more talent than TU Berlin/TU Munchen, but the main difference it’s that the former has more access to resources and certain amount of intelectual freedom to spend a bit of time in something. End result: The top conferences in AI, Machine Learning and so forth are dominated by Google and other big companies.
- throwaway14356 3y ago
  what defines the best? last i hear the interview process is a hard unsolved problem. the best would also relate to the size culture, goal of the company, existing products etc etc why would the best seek employment? i chat with a guy who claimed to charge 5000 per phone call, he would be much to busy studying to even consider employment.
nova22033 3y ago
Google apologists love telling us how Google invented the damn transformers. But everyone on the original team have their own startups, You don't have to be a google apologist to acknowledge the fact that they did invent the transformer. People leaving google doesn't change that fact.
riku_iki 3y ago
invention of transformer was not pivotal, those t2t guys who authored paper couldn't achieve any quality improvements over other SOTAs at that time. Pivotal moment was BERT, which demonstrated that with some additions transformer can achieve very significant improvements, and inventor is still at google, and transformer creators got lot of hype from that. Also, most important part is attention, which also was not invented at google.
- visarga 3y ago
  This is an "original" take to put BERT above Attention is All You Need.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    what do you mean? could you explain?

bottlepalm 3y ago

It sounds like a great place for young devs to cut their teeth. There are probably lots of 'old' devs there that are comfortable to rest and vest while passing their knowledge down to the younglings.

candiodari 3y ago
It seems that the problem was not that these people didn't WANT to create products for Google, it's that they tried and failed. Obviously the reason they failed wasn't that they couldn't make their products work. So that leaves that they weren't allowed to create these products, which is the same as saying that they were forced to work on other people's ideas ... ideas that mostly didn't pan out. Or that Google didn't pay them what they were worth (by the ultracapitalist definition of worth: you're worth what someone is willing to pay). Perhaps a combination of both: that they were forced to work on unsuccessful products and couldn't get raises/promotions as a result of that. That management had it's own ideas they really, really, really needed to succeed, and when it failed they dragged a lot of people down with them. I must say, that sounds exactly like what you'd find happening in large companies.
- epups 3y ago
  It's possible that Google simply couldn't afford them anymore. At these unicorns they are leading, their current and projected net worth is so huge that even a company like Google might not be able to justify paying it without serious disruption. I always thought that's what Alphabet was for, to be honest. Trying to keep a sort of ecosystem of acquisitions and Google spin-off startups with direct Google investment.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    or they didn't create anything useful since that paper, and google decided not to bid on them.

more_corn 3y ago

I mean, they hired the best people. Google just weren’t able to provide an environment where the best people were able to turn their ideas into products.

belter 3y ago
I find the possibility this statement is true, extraordinary in itself, and research material for at least five Phds in Corporate Management and Governance.
- BoxFour 3y ago
  I find it’s not that complicated, particularly if you've had exposure to these firms: 1) They exhibit an exceptionally risk-averse stance from a legal standpoint. Consequently, matters with even the slightest chance of legal repercussions (usually revolving around privacy) undergo an exhaustive examination that can take years. Often things get killed just because of the spectre of legal/privacy review. 2) Gaining unanimous agreement within the company for a particular course of action, especially necessary for projects demanding substantial resources, can truly be likened to an arduous Sisyphean endeavor. 3) Anything that doesn't immediately and unequivocally exhibit the potential to evolve into a multi-billion dollar industry is met with significant doubt.
  - bradneuberg 3y ago
    You’ve exactly hit the nail on the head. I’ve been in larger companies and these 3 dynamics explain well why they have trouble innovating.
  - CMCDragonkai 3y ago
    It's really simple. It's a big ship with a small rudder. And maybe you're the best but you're just one guy. There's hundreds of thousands of people invested in the ship, you can try to push the rudder but you're going to hit resistance no matter what.
ksey3 3y ago

o1y32 3y ago

Whether those authors are still at Google is irrelevant. As long as Google is still hiring the best people, you should expect to see work that has just the same quality and impact, just produced by a new team. Although I genuinely don't know if this is still true.

sorokod 3y ago
Fungible! You say that best researchers are fungible - why would that be true?
kkzz99 3y ago
But this perfectly illustrates that just having the "best people" doesn't mean anything as long as the policies in the company doesn't allow for the innovation AND execution into products.
justinclift 3y ago
> As long as Google is still hiring the best people ... When has that ever been the case? Just because some company says "We do X", you shouldn't fall for the trap of believing them. All of the FAANG companies say the same thing, as do quite a few non-FAANG companies.
- braza 3y ago
  > When has that ever been the case? Not the OP, but let me reframe the point here: I do not dare to say that Google hire the best; but what they goes quite close to get the top talent from some demographics and with certain skills and give the resources, some amount of freedom, and guidance and then collect the astonishing research results. Personally I do not think that Google Brain has more talent than TU Berlin/TU Munchen, but the main difference it’s that the former has more access to resources and certain amount of intelectual freedom to spend a bit of time in something. End result: The top conferences in AI, Machine Learning and so forth are dominated by Google and other big companies.
throwaway14356 3y ago
what defines the best? last i hear the interview process is a hard unsolved problem. the best would also relate to the size culture, goal of the company, existing products etc etc why would the best seek employment? i chat with a guy who claimed to charge 5000 per phone call, he would be much to busy studying to even consider employment.

nova22033 3y ago

Google apologists love telling us how Google invented the damn transformers. But everyone on the original team have their own startups, You don't have to be a google apologist to acknowledge the fact that they did invent the transformer. People leaving google doesn't change that fact.

riku_iki 3y ago

invention of transformer was not pivotal, those t2t guys who authored paper couldn't achieve any quality improvements over other SOTAs at that time. Pivotal moment was BERT, which demonstrated that with some additions transformer can achieve very significant improvements, and inventor is still at google, and transformer creators got lot of hype from that. Also, most important part is attention, which also was not invented at google.

visarga 3y ago
This is an "original" take to put BERT above Attention is All You Need.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  what do you mean? could you explain?