3 ms·

And none of them still work for Google. It’s truly baffling that Google’s CEO still has a job after how badly he fumbled on AI.

hotstickyballs 3y ago
Just like Xerox and Bell. Innovation isn’t necessarily their most important job, at least when innovations are being made.
nemo44x 3y ago
He was too distracted with all the other things going on under his watch. He spent too much time trying to convince rank and file that it's OK to do business with customers they don't like, trying to ensure arbitrary hiring goals were made, and appeasing the internal activists that led protests and pressured to exit people that didn't fall in line. This is why the CEO of Coinbase sent the memo a few years back stating that these types of people (not mission focused, self absorbed, and distracting) should leave the company. The CEO of Google should be fired.
- tdb7893 3y ago
  How has he been appeasing internal activists? He's been pretty clear about firing them Edit: I'm also unclear on what makes you think he's spending much time on "arbitrary hiring goals". I remember an initiative for hiring in a wider variety, also conveniently much cheaper, locations but there wasn't indication he was personally spending time on it
- hrmyeah 3y ago
  [dead]
- calf 3y ago
  It is intellectually dishonest to call the military-industrial complex merely "customers that some Google employees didn't like". Humans are more than their companies' mission, and your freedom to exercise your political views on how companies should be run inherently relies on this principle, too. So your argument is fundamentally a hypocrites projection.
  - srackey 3y ago
    “ Humans are more than their companies' mission” Not when they’re on the clock. Besides, many of the Google employees who are against defense projects are against them because those projects actively target their home countries. Much harder problem to fix!
    - maxcoder4 3y ago
      I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Obviously you don't get to ignore your morals and values just because you're currently employed by someone?
0xcafecafe 3y ago
Among other things (like cloud for instance). I always think Sundar is the Steve Ballmer of Google.
Thaxll 3y ago
Well, ads are doing well.
paxys 3y ago
Their wildest success at Google would have meant the company's stock price doubling or tripling and their stock grants being worth a couple million dollars at most. Meanwhile all of them had blank checks from top VCs in the valley and the freedom to do whatever they wanted with zero oversight. What exactly could Sundar have done to retain them?
- pigscantfly 3y ago
  It would have gone much better for Google if the Brain team had been permitted to apply their work, but they were repeatedly blocked on stated grounds of AI safety and worries about impacting existing business lines through negative PR. I think this is probably the biggest missed business opportunity of the past decade, and much of the blame for losing key talent and Google's head start in LLMs ultimately resides with Sundar, although there are managers in between with their own share of the blame.
  - com2kid 3y ago
    They should have been spun out with a few billion dollars budget, no oversight, and Google having 90% (or some other very high %) ownership and rights of first purchase to buy them back. It is a successful model that has worked again and again to escape the problem of corporate bureaucracy.
    - paxys 3y ago
      Interestingly Google itself has followed this model with Waymo. Employees got Waymo stock not Google, and there was even speculation that Google took on outside investors. It's weird to me that they didn't consider generative AI would be as game changing as self driving cars, especially considering the tech was right in front of them.
  - lordswork 3y ago
    Funnily enough, the same AI safety teams that held Google back from using large transformers in products are also largely responsible for the Gemini image generation debacle. It is tough to find the right balance though, because AI safety is not something you want to brush off.
pixl97 3y ago
I'm not 100% sure I agree... Google is an ad company at the end of the day. Google is still making obscene amount of money with ads. Currently Gen AI is a massive expense in training and running and is only looking like it may harm future ad revenue (yet to be seen). Meanwhile OpenAI has not surpassed that critical threshold where they dominate the market with a moat and become a trillion dollar company. It is typically very hard for a company to change what they actually do, so much so that in the vast majority of cases its much more effective (money wise) to switch from developing products to becoming a rent seeking utility by means of lobbying and regulation. Simply put, Google itself could not have succeeded with GenAI without an outside competitor as it would have become its own competition and the CEO would have been removed for such a blunder.
- moralestapia 3y ago
  >it may harm future ad revenue (yet to be seen) It harms ad revenue at the moment. For some specific queries (like code-related), I now go to chat.openai.com before google.com, I'm sure I'm not the only one. AI is the only thing that can put an end to Google's dominance of the web. I also have no idea how Sundar still has a job there.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  Google is an AI/ML company that has shoehorned AI/ML researchers into working on ads to pay the bills.
- pchristensen 3y ago
  Classic Innovator's Dilemma case study.
- com2kid 3y ago
  > It is typically very hard for a company to change what they actually do Microsoft started out selling BASIC runtimes. Then they moved into operating systems. Then they moved into Cloud. Satya seems to be putting his money where his mouth is and working hard to transition the company to AI now. Apple has likewise undergone multiplet transformations over the decades. However Google has the unique problem that their main cash cow is absurdly lucrative and has been an ongoing source of extreme income for multiple decades now, where as other companies typically can't get away with a single product line keeping them on top of the world for 20+ years. (Windows being an exception, maybe Microsoft is an exception, but say what you will about MS, they pushed technology forward throughout the 90s and accomplished their goal of a PC in every house)
ryandvm 3y ago
I think the issue is that there is no future for a trustworthy AI that doesn't completely cannibalize their ad revenue cash cow. Like, who wants to use an AI that says things like, "... and that's why you should wear sunscreen outside. Speaking of skin protection, you should try Banana Boat's new Ultra 95 SPF sunscreen."
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
  Yeah, but isn't the idea to cannibalize your own products before someone else does?! In any case, consumer chatbots isn't the only way to sell the tech. Lot's of commercial use too. I don't see why ads couldn't be integrated with chatbots too for that matter. There's no point serving them outside of a context where the user appears to be interested in a product/service, and in that case there are various ways ads could be displayed/inserted.
- kccqzy 3y ago
  You are not imaginative enough.
- open592 3y ago
  "Based on the research I have available wearing sunscreen with a SPF at or greater than 95 is the most likely to prevent the harmful effects of sunburn". Go to google -> Search "sunscreen" -> (Sponsored) Banana Boat new Ultra 95 SPF sunscreen Oh wow! 95 SPF! Perfect
- acdha 3y ago
  > Like, who wants to use an AI that says things like, "... and that's why you should wear sunscreen outside. Speaking of skin protection, you should try Banana Boat's new Ultra 95 SPF sunscreen." On the other hand, their history suggests most people would be fine with an AI which did this as long as it was accurate: > ... and that's why you should wear sunscreen outside. > Sponsored by: Banana Boat's new Ultra 95 SPF sunscreen…"
seatac76 3y ago
I mean if you had the pedigree these people have, the right move is to leave a big company and go start your own thing, there is simply a lot more upside there. You’d be foolish to stay with a big company, not sure what Google could have done here. Not everyone wants to be Jeff Dean.
mzs 3y ago
Google doesn't have to try to be the best at AI now, it can just buy whoever is the winner later - a lesson learned from google video.
- robocat 3y ago
  No Google can't just buy the winner. Google purchased YouTube for $1.65 billion (and I recall that seemed overpriced at the time). The way VC works for private companies now is completely different than in 2006.
- vlakreeh 3y ago
  If that winner turns out to be OpenAI and they attempt to buy them it'll be blocked by regulators instantly.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

hotstickyballs 3y ago

Just like Xerox and Bell. Innovation isn’t necessarily their most important job, at least when innovations are being made.

nemo44x 3y ago

He was too distracted with all the other things going on under his watch. He spent too much time trying to convince rank and file that it's OK to do business with customers they don't like, trying to ensure arbitrary hiring goals were made, and appeasing the internal activists that led protests and pressured to exit people that didn't fall in line. This is why the CEO of Coinbase sent the memo a few years back stating that these types of people (not mission focused, self absorbed, and distracting) should leave the company. The CEO of Google should be fired.

tdb7893 3y ago
How has he been appeasing internal activists? He's been pretty clear about firing them Edit: I'm also unclear on what makes you think he's spending much time on "arbitrary hiring goals". I remember an initiative for hiring in a wider variety, also conveniently much cheaper, locations but there wasn't indication he was personally spending time on it
hrmyeah 3y ago
[dead]
calf 3y ago
It is intellectually dishonest to call the military-industrial complex merely "customers that some Google employees didn't like". Humans are more than their companies' mission, and your freedom to exercise your political views on how companies should be run inherently relies on this principle, too. So your argument is fundamentally a hypocrites projection.
- srackey 3y ago
  “ Humans are more than their companies' mission” Not when they’re on the clock. Besides, many of the Google employees who are against defense projects are against them because those projects actively target their home countries. Much harder problem to fix!
  - maxcoder4 3y ago
    I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Obviously you don't get to ignore your morals and values just because you're currently employed by someone?

0xcafecafe 3y ago

Among other things (like cloud for instance). I always think Sundar is the Steve Ballmer of Google.

Thaxll 3y ago

Well, ads are doing well.

paxys 3y ago

Their wildest success at Google would have meant the company's stock price doubling or tripling and their stock grants being worth a couple million dollars at most. Meanwhile all of them had blank checks from top VCs in the valley and the freedom to do whatever they wanted with zero oversight. What exactly could Sundar have done to retain them?

pigscantfly 3y ago
It would have gone much better for Google if the Brain team had been permitted to apply their work, but they were repeatedly blocked on stated grounds of AI safety and worries about impacting existing business lines through negative PR. I think this is probably the biggest missed business opportunity of the past decade, and much of the blame for losing key talent and Google's head start in LLMs ultimately resides with Sundar, although there are managers in between with their own share of the blame.
- com2kid 3y ago
  They should have been spun out with a few billion dollars budget, no oversight, and Google having 90% (or some other very high %) ownership and rights of first purchase to buy them back. It is a successful model that has worked again and again to escape the problem of corporate bureaucracy.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Interestingly Google itself has followed this model with Waymo. Employees got Waymo stock not Google, and there was even speculation that Google took on outside investors. It's weird to me that they didn't consider generative AI would be as game changing as self driving cars, especially considering the tech was right in front of them.
- lordswork 3y ago
  Funnily enough, the same AI safety teams that held Google back from using large transformers in products are also largely responsible for the Gemini image generation debacle. It is tough to find the right balance though, because AI safety is not something you want to brush off.

pixl97 3y ago

I'm not 100% sure I agree... Google is an ad company at the end of the day. Google is still making obscene amount of money with ads. Currently Gen AI is a massive expense in training and running and is only looking like it may harm future ad revenue (yet to be seen). Meanwhile OpenAI has not surpassed that critical threshold where they dominate the market with a moat and become a trillion dollar company. It is typically very hard for a company to change what they actually do, so much so that in the vast majority of cases its much more effective (money wise) to switch from developing products to becoming a rent seeking utility by means of lobbying and regulation. Simply put, Google itself could not have succeeded with GenAI without an outside competitor as it would have become its own competition and the CEO would have been removed for such a blunder.

moralestapia 3y ago
>it may harm future ad revenue (yet to be seen) It harms ad revenue at the moment. For some specific queries (like code-related), I now go to chat.openai.com before google.com, I'm sure I'm not the only one. AI is the only thing that can put an end to Google's dominance of the web. I also have no idea how Sundar still has a job there.
CuriouslyC 3y ago
Google is an AI/ML company that has shoehorned AI/ML researchers into working on ads to pay the bills.
pchristensen 3y ago
Classic Innovator's Dilemma case study.
com2kid 3y ago
> It is typically very hard for a company to change what they actually do Microsoft started out selling BASIC runtimes. Then they moved into operating systems. Then they moved into Cloud. Satya seems to be putting his money where his mouth is and working hard to transition the company to AI now. Apple has likewise undergone multiplet transformations over the decades. However Google has the unique problem that their main cash cow is absurdly lucrative and has been an ongoing source of extreme income for multiple decades now, where as other companies typically can't get away with a single product line keeping them on top of the world for 20+ years. (Windows being an exception, maybe Microsoft is an exception, but say what you will about MS, they pushed technology forward throughout the 90s and accomplished their goal of a PC in every house)

ryandvm 3y ago

I think the issue is that there is no future for a trustworthy AI that doesn't completely cannibalize their ad revenue cash cow. Like, who wants to use an AI that says things like, "... and that's why you should wear sunscreen outside. Speaking of skin protection, you should try Banana Boat's new Ultra 95 SPF sunscreen."

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
Yeah, but isn't the idea to cannibalize your own products before someone else does?! In any case, consumer chatbots isn't the only way to sell the tech. Lot's of commercial use too. I don't see why ads couldn't be integrated with chatbots too for that matter. There's no point serving them outside of a context where the user appears to be interested in a product/service, and in that case there are various ways ads could be displayed/inserted.
kccqzy 3y ago
You are not imaginative enough.
open592 3y ago
"Based on the research I have available wearing sunscreen with a SPF at or greater than 95 is the most likely to prevent the harmful effects of sunburn". Go to google -> Search "sunscreen" -> (Sponsored) Banana Boat new Ultra 95 SPF sunscreen Oh wow! 95 SPF! Perfect
acdha 3y ago
> Like, who wants to use an AI that says things like, "... and that's why you should wear sunscreen outside. Speaking of skin protection, you should try Banana Boat's new Ultra 95 SPF sunscreen." On the other hand, their history suggests most people would be fine with an AI which did this as long as it was accurate: > ... and that's why you should wear sunscreen outside. > Sponsored by: Banana Boat's new Ultra 95 SPF sunscreen…"

seatac76 3y ago

I mean if you had the pedigree these people have, the right move is to leave a big company and go start your own thing, there is simply a lot more upside there. You’d be foolish to stay with a big company, not sure what Google could have done here. Not everyone wants to be Jeff Dean.

mzs 3y ago

Google doesn't have to try to be the best at AI now, it can just buy whoever is the winner later - a lesson learned from google video.

robocat 3y ago
No Google can't just buy the winner. Google purchased YouTube for $1.65 billion (and I recall that seemed overpriced at the time). The way VC works for private companies now is completely different than in 2006.
vlakreeh 3y ago
If that winner turns out to be OpenAI and they attempt to buy them it'll be blocked by regulators instantly.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]