6 ms·

I just want to underscore that. DeepMind's research output within the last month is staggering: 2023-11-14: GraphCast, word leading weather prediction model, p

by phi0 3y ago

I just want to underscore that. DeepMind's research output within the last month is staggering: 2023-11-14: GraphCast, word leading weather prediction model, published in Science 2023-11-15: Student of Games: unified learning algorithm, major algorithmic breath-through, published in Science 2023-11-16: Music generation model, seemingly SOTA 2023-11-29: GNoME model for material discovery, published in Nature 2023-12-06: Gemini, the most advanced LLM according to own benchmarks

dragonwriter 3y ago
Google is very good at AI research. Where it has fallen down (compared to its relative performance in relevant research) is public generative AI products [0]. It is trying very hard to catch up at that, and its disadvantage isn't technological, but that doesn't mean it isn't real and durable. [0] I say "generative AI" because AI is a big an amorphous space, and lots of Google's products have some form of AI that is behind important features, so I'm just talking about products where generative AI is the center of what the product offers, which have become a big deal recently and where Google had definitely been delivering far below its general AI research weight class so far.
- _lvbh 3y ago
  > Google is very good at AI research. Where it has fallen down (compared to its relative performance in relevant research) is public generative AI products In such cases, I actually prefer Google over OpenAI. Monetization isn’t everything
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > In such cases, I actually prefer Google over OpenAI. For, what, moral kudos? (to be clear, I'm not saying this is a less important thing in some general sense, I'm saying what is preferred is always dependent on what we are talking about preferences for.) > Monetization isn’t everything Providing a user product (monetization is a different issue, though for a for-profit company they tend to be closely connected) is ultimately important for people looking for a product to use. Other interests favor other things, sure.
    - pb7 3y ago
      >For, what, moral kudos? For the good of society? Performing and releasing bleeding edge research benefits everyone, because anyone can use it. Case in point: transformers. There is nothing open about OpenAI and they wouldn't exist in their current form without years of research funded by Google.
      - jaredsohn 3y ago
        >There is nothing open about OpenAI I personally think of it as open in the sense that they provide an API to allow anyone to use it (if they pay) and take advantage of the training they did. Is in contrast to large companies like Google which have lots of data and historically just use AI for their own products. Edit: I define it as having some level of being open beyond 'nothing'. The name doesn't scale well over time based on business considerations and the business environment changing and was named poorly when 'open source' is a common usage of open within tech. They should have used AI products to help them in naming the company and be aware of such potential controversies. From chatgpt today (which wasn't an option at the time but they maybe could have gotten similar information or just thought about it more): What are the drawbacks to calling an AI company 'open'? ... "1. Expectations of Open Source: Using the term "open" might lead people to expect that the company's AI technology or software is open source. If this is not the case, it could create confusion and disappointment among users and developers who anticipate access to source code and the ability to modify and distribute the software freely. 2. Transparency Concerns: If an AI company claims to be "open," there may be heightened expectations regarding the transparency of their algorithms, decision-making processes, and data usage. Failure to meet these expectations could lead to skepticism or distrust among users and the broader public." ...
        leshow 3y ago
        You define "open" as selling a service?
        swores 3y ago
        I mean, we do use that word to describe physical retail shops as being available to sell vs being closed to sell, so it's not an insane use... though I do think that in a tech context it's more misleading than not.
aantix 3y ago
They publish but don't share. Who cares about your cool tech if we can't experience it ourselves? I don't care about your blog writeup or research paper. Google is locked behind research bubbles, legal reviews and safety checks. Mean while OpenAI is eating their lunch.
- behnamoh 3y ago
  this. google is like academia; you publish a lot but others who implement your work are the ones making money off of it.
  - xnx 3y ago
    To take an example from the past month, billions of users are now benefiting from more accurate weather forecasts from their new model. Is there another company making more money from AI-powered products than Google right now?
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      > Is there another company making more money from AI-powered products than Google right now? Microsoft? In the sense that OpenAI is "paying" them... through MS's own investment.
      - xnx 3y ago
        It's a very fuzzy question I posed. For pure customer-pays-for-AI-service it could be Microsoft. I'm kind of thinking of it as: Google's core products (search, ads, YouTube, Gmail) would not be possible with AI and they are huge cash cows.
    - shard 3y ago
      Are there people paying for Google's weather predictions?
      - xnx 3y ago

by phi0 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

Google is very good at AI research. Where it has fallen down (compared to its relative performance in relevant research) is public generative AI products [0]. It is trying very hard to catch up at that, and its disadvantage isn't technological, but that doesn't mean it isn't real and durable. [0] I say "generative AI" because AI is a big an amorphous space, and lots of Google's products have some form of AI that is behind important features, so I'm just talking about products where generative AI is the center of what the product offers, which have become a big deal recently and where Google had definitely been delivering far below its general AI research weight class so far.

_lvbh 3y ago
> Google is very good at AI research. Where it has fallen down (compared to its relative performance in relevant research) is public generative AI products In such cases, I actually prefer Google over OpenAI. Monetization isn’t everything
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > In such cases, I actually prefer Google over OpenAI. For, what, moral kudos? (to be clear, I'm not saying this is a less important thing in some general sense, I'm saying what is preferred is always dependent on what we are talking about preferences for.) > Monetization isn’t everything Providing a user product (monetization is a different issue, though for a for-profit company they tend to be closely connected) is ultimately important for people looking for a product to use. Other interests favor other things, sure.
  - pb7 3y ago
    >For, what, moral kudos? For the good of society? Performing and releasing bleeding edge research benefits everyone, because anyone can use it. Case in point: transformers. There is nothing open about OpenAI and they wouldn't exist in their current form without years of research funded by Google.
    - jaredsohn 3y ago
      >There is nothing open about OpenAI I personally think of it as open in the sense that they provide an API to allow anyone to use it (if they pay) and take advantage of the training they did. Is in contrast to large companies like Google which have lots of data and historically just use AI for their own products. Edit: I define it as having some level of being open beyond 'nothing'. The name doesn't scale well over time based on business considerations and the business environment changing and was named poorly when 'open source' is a common usage of open within tech. They should have used AI products to help them in naming the company and be aware of such potential controversies. From chatgpt today (which wasn't an option at the time but they maybe could have gotten similar information or just thought about it more): What are the drawbacks to calling an AI company 'open'? ... "1. Expectations of Open Source: Using the term "open" might lead people to expect that the company's AI technology or software is open source. If this is not the case, it could create confusion and disappointment among users and developers who anticipate access to source code and the ability to modify and distribute the software freely. 2. Transparency Concerns: If an AI company claims to be "open," there may be heightened expectations regarding the transparency of their algorithms, decision-making processes, and data usage. Failure to meet these expectations could lead to skepticism or distrust among users and the broader public." ...
      - leshow 3y ago
        You define "open" as selling a service?
        swores 3y ago
        I mean, we do use that word to describe physical retail shops as being available to sell vs being closed to sell, so it's not an insane use... though I do think that in a tech context it's more misleading than not.

aantix 3y ago

They publish but don't share. Who cares about your cool tech if we can't experience it ourselves? I don't care about your blog writeup or research paper. Google is locked behind research bubbles, legal reviews and safety checks. Mean while OpenAI is eating their lunch.

behnamoh 3y ago
this. google is like academia; you publish a lot but others who implement your work are the ones making money off of it.
- xnx 3y ago
  To take an example from the past month, billions of users are now benefiting from more accurate weather forecasts from their new model. Is there another company making more money from AI-powered products than Google right now?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    > Is there another company making more money from AI-powered products than Google right now? Microsoft? In the sense that OpenAI is "paying" them... through MS's own investment.
    - xnx 3y ago
      It's a very fuzzy question I posed. For pure customer-pays-for-AI-service it could be Microsoft. I'm kind of thinking of it as: Google's core products (search, ads, YouTube, Gmail) would not be possible with AI and they are huge cash cows.
  - shard 3y ago
    Are there people paying for Google's weather predictions?
    - xnx 3y ago