3 ms·

This seems histrionic for a product which is effectively still in d̶e̶v̶ early access. So Google rolled out something with some hasty and bad guard-rails to avo

This seems histrionic for a product which is effectively still in d̶e̶v̶ early access. So Google rolled out something with some hasty and bad guard-rails to avoid a ton of backlash on a fledgling product - and thus...their leadership is kneecapped by commitment to the liberal agenda? If you probe in either political direction Gemini provides hedgy answers, because Google programmed it to basically have no opinions on anything. Presumably this will change as they fine-tune things, but it seems like a very normal and prudent decision to me. Are we supposed to be mad that Google isn't just intentionally flipping a bird to the NBC class for center-right clout? How on Earth does does this reflect on their fundamental AI capabilities? edit: more precise word choice

justanotheratom 3y ago
RE: for a product which is effectively still in dev It is released.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  It seems clear Google wouldn't have released it yet if it hadn't been forced to by OpenAI releasing theirs. That's why it's reasonable to say it's "effectively" still in dev, even when it's not technically. Otherwise there was no need to use the word "effectively" at all.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  Sure okay "early access" then. Basically just trying to say that if you're expecting a stable build right now you're in for a bad time, IMO
MBCook 3y ago
I don’t think it’s fair to claim “it’s still in dev“ once you’ve released it to the public. Intentional or not, a product is causing harm from the moment it’s available. So I think the criticism is fair (if you believe it causes harm) even though they may claim it’s not done yet.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  Good point, dev is a bad word. "beta" or "early access" might have been a better term. I don't really believe that this is causing harm, however. GenAI is still so new, and Gemini in particular, that I don't think anybody is genuinely basing their political opinions off its output. If this product had achieved the cultural legacy of ex. Wikipedia I would understand the concern
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Yeah the “if it causes harm” thing is certainly debatable in this situation. i was commenting more generally. I’m tired of the “its beta give them a pass” attitude I see used in many situations even if the harm is far more clear. I’ve seen Autopilot/FSD/Cruise defended that way. “Oh if it runs over someone it’s beta so it’s ok” makes no sense to me, but that’s basically the attitude I’ve seen but not stated that cleanly. I don’t really believe in the idea of a public beta period. You’re just making a rough incomplete release. I understand saying “we put it out early, sorry there are a few bugs and it looks rough”. But there has to be a line somewhere. And to me harm is on the other side of that line.
    - tech_ken 3y ago
      >I understand saying “we put it out early, sorry there are a few bugs and it looks rough”. But there has to be a line somewhere. And to me harm is on the other side of that line. Very true, I'm definitely unenthused about the rush to market with all these hype-y AI products. At a minimum it seems fair to criticize Google for releasing something this half-baked, instead of taking the time to get it right and trusting that the product's value will make up for missing the feeding frenzy. I just feel like this is the consequence of bad product thinking, rather than the larger cultural agenda (seemingly) imputed by the OP's author. If it does lead to unambiguous downstream harm I certainly won't defend that, I just feel that the product space is innocuous enough (at least relative to the ex. AV space) that I feel like this is more of a cultural war issue than an actual technology concern.
      - 3y ago

justanotheratom 3y ago

RE: for a product which is effectively still in dev It is released.

crazygringo 3y ago
It seems clear Google wouldn't have released it yet if it hadn't been forced to by OpenAI releasing theirs. That's why it's reasonable to say it's "effectively" still in dev, even when it's not technically. Otherwise there was no need to use the word "effectively" at all.
tech_ken 3y ago
Sure okay "early access" then. Basically just trying to say that if you're expecting a stable build right now you're in for a bad time, IMO

MBCook 3y ago

I don’t think it’s fair to claim “it’s still in dev“ once you’ve released it to the public. Intentional or not, a product is causing harm from the moment it’s available. So I think the criticism is fair (if you believe it causes harm) even though they may claim it’s not done yet.

tech_ken 3y ago
Good point, dev is a bad word. "beta" or "early access" might have been a better term. I don't really believe that this is causing harm, however. GenAI is still so new, and Gemini in particular, that I don't think anybody is genuinely basing their political opinions off its output. If this product had achieved the cultural legacy of ex. Wikipedia I would understand the concern
- MBCook 3y ago
  Yeah the “if it causes harm” thing is certainly debatable in this situation. i was commenting more generally. I’m tired of the “its beta give them a pass” attitude I see used in many situations even if the harm is far more clear. I’ve seen Autopilot/FSD/Cruise defended that way. “Oh if it runs over someone it’s beta so it’s ok” makes no sense to me, but that’s basically the attitude I’ve seen but not stated that cleanly. I don’t really believe in the idea of a public beta period. You’re just making a rough incomplete release. I understand saying “we put it out early, sorry there are a few bugs and it looks rough”. But there has to be a line somewhere. And to me harm is on the other side of that line.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    >I understand saying “we put it out early, sorry there are a few bugs and it looks rough”. But there has to be a line somewhere. And to me harm is on the other side of that line. Very true, I'm definitely unenthused about the rush to market with all these hype-y AI products. At a minimum it seems fair to criticize Google for releasing something this half-baked, instead of taking the time to get it right and trusting that the product's value will make up for missing the feeding frenzy. I just feel like this is the consequence of bad product thinking, rather than the larger cultural agenda (seemingly) imputed by the OP's author. If it does lead to unambiguous downstream harm I certainly won't defend that, I just feel that the product space is innocuous enough (at least relative to the ex. AV space) that I feel like this is more of a cultural war issue than an actual technology concern.
    - 3y ago