4 ms·

I think the biggest strategic oversight that Google leadership has made is not learning from Microsoft's Tay fiasco. What Google should have done is setup an e

I think the biggest strategic oversight that Google leadership has made is not learning from Microsoft's Tay fiasco. What Google should have done is setup an entirely separate startup (or startups) similar to the approach Microsoft has taken with OpenAI. Let a few young, ambitious startup CEOs lead the way and supply them with billions in funding which they must use in Google Cloud Compute AI spend - in exchange for a majority stake in their company and integrating with Google properties only. Book the GCP AI revenue and get stock bump from YoY GCP growth. If the startup(s) misstep, claim the tax write-off then move on to the next batch. If they are successful over a five year stretch then just buy them out fully and get some positive news coverage over the successful strategic acquisition. As a member of Mag7/FAANG, Google leadership must realize that any and all minor missteps are going to be blown out of proportion via clickbait articles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(chatbot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(chatbot)

est31 3y ago
Startups also provide brand isolation. If you get the Microsoft AI to say things it shouldn't say then that tarnishes the MS brand, if a MS associated startup has prompt hacks, then there is a layer of isolation. Large companies are sadly not good at innovating themselves, probably this is an emergent effect from the size alone and the bureaucracy such size sadly requires. Especially when people sue you for millions when you search their name and lies show up, you must erect barriers. You also cannot let every PM in the company launch potentially disappointing products. Instead proposals need to get reviewed at least from legal points of view, but usually by a larger set of departments. By the time half of the reviews are done, the competing startup has already launched the product, gotten direct user feedback, and established itself as the "innovator", all this while the big tech company where someone might have had the same idea is busy with getting it through its bureaucracy.
- somethoughts 3y ago
  Agree - I do think that part of the bureaucracy is due to the fact that any new consumer facing product from a FAANG is going to be relentlessly challenged adversarially by every social media tech-influencer as in this case. And no product team wants to put the CEO in the media/congressional hearing hot seat. Conversely a new consumer product from a new startup is going to spend half the time talking about what the new company is etc. before getting to any product flaws. And most of the time such things are relegated to niche reddit subgroups.
- techjamie 3y ago
  > probably this is an emergent effect from the size alone and the bureaucracy such size sadly requires. One of the top complaints I've seen from former Google employees is that they have a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy involved in getting anything at all done. So I'd say there's a lot of credence to that assumption in this instance.

est31 3y ago

Startups also provide brand isolation. If you get the Microsoft AI to say things it shouldn't say then that tarnishes the MS brand, if a MS associated startup has prompt hacks, then there is a layer of isolation. Large companies are sadly not good at innovating themselves, probably this is an emergent effect from the size alone and the bureaucracy such size sadly requires. Especially when people sue you for millions when you search their name and lies show up, you must erect barriers. You also cannot let every PM in the company launch potentially disappointing products. Instead proposals need to get reviewed at least from legal points of view, but usually by a larger set of departments. By the time half of the reviews are done, the competing startup has already launched the product, gotten direct user feedback, and established itself as the "innovator", all this while the big tech company where someone might have had the same idea is busy with getting it through its bureaucracy.

somethoughts 3y ago
Agree - I do think that part of the bureaucracy is due to the fact that any new consumer facing product from a FAANG is going to be relentlessly challenged adversarially by every social media tech-influencer as in this case. And no product team wants to put the CEO in the media/congressional hearing hot seat. Conversely a new consumer product from a new startup is going to spend half the time talking about what the new company is etc. before getting to any product flaws. And most of the time such things are relegated to niche reddit subgroups.
techjamie 3y ago
> probably this is an emergent effect from the size alone and the bureaucracy such size sadly requires. One of the top complaints I've seen from former Google employees is that they have a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy involved in getting anything at all done. So I'd say there's a lot of credence to that assumption in this instance.