[HN Gopher] From Google: Why we focus on AI (and to what end)
___________________________________________________________________
From Google: Why we focus on AI (and to what end)
Author : pissedgenes
Score : 26 points
Date : 2023-01-17 13:37 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ai.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (ai.google)
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| This means nothing. AI will invade any space it can. Any use case
| found by any company will immediately be x-copied, and the mvp
| mass deployed, by competitors. The idea of responsible profit
| maximization is absurd. This is a shitty attempt to explain the
| lack of progress.
|
| > We are so focused on safety/diversity/risk/equity/wtf that we
| forgot to make cool profitable stuff.
| dougmwne wrote:
| To me it looks like Google never intended to turn its AI
| research into products. It probably sees these LLMs, that it
| itself was instrumental in inventing as a competitor to search
| and nothing that could ever get green lit as a product due to
| internal politics. I see OpenAI as an intentional effort to
| free this tech from the smothering of Google led by SV insiders
| in the know on what Google was sitting on.
| belval wrote:
| Nice PR/buzzword soup they got there, the article is almost
| entirely devoid of substance.
|
| The part on "Responsible AI" reminds me of the "Tethics" episode
| of Silicon Valley, brought to you by the people who own ~30% on
| the online ad market.
| foolproofplan wrote:
| "Google orkspace"? So many eyes and no QA?
| oars wrote:
| Let's see what actions they take in the coming years, instead of
| just words.
| RigelKentaurus wrote:
| Purely reactive response to ChatGPT dominating the AI
| conversation lately. However, I'm excited to see what Google will
| release in AI this year.
| pissedgenes wrote:
| Interesting response from Google, signed off by all the top dogs,
| including Sundar -- hard to not read between the lines as this
| being a rebuke to OpenAI and StabilityAI for letting the public
| have relatively unfettered access.
| [deleted]
| ronsor wrote:
| Google has chosen to designate itself as the moral guardian and
| insists that other companies do similar.
| causalmodels wrote:
| It is a lot easier to issue rebukes than it is to actually ship
| products.
| ddmma wrote:
| The elephant in the room have a press release
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| If you read past the public relations material, that is
| interesting stuff.
|
| I was invited to work at Google in 2013 and it is an interesting
| place.
|
| I ran a deep learning team at Capital One and I believe DL truly
| is transformative.
|
| Anyway I appreciate Google, Microsoft, etc. for what they do.
| vagabund wrote:
| You'd think the experience of ChatGPT would have taught them that
| the average person isn't blindly worshipping the output of LLMs,
| and has the requisite critical thinking skills to keep the useful
| bits and discard the rest. Instead we get this belittling
| rebuttal highlighting the immense danger of letting the public
| use a service that may, occasionally, be wrong, as though humans
| don't encounter and discriminate incorrect information throughout
| every day of their lives (not least on google's own existing
| services). Instead of pontificating about "earning the public
| trust", maybe stop positioning yourself as the unassailable
| source of truth and give people tools that will materially
| improve their lives today, if you really want to follow through
| on your mission.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-17 23:02 UTC)