[HN Gopher] Google employees criticize CEO for "dumpster fire" r...
___________________________________________________________________
Google employees criticize CEO for "dumpster fire" response to
ChatGPT
Author : bribroder
Score : 408 points
Date : 2023-02-14 15:02 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| system16 wrote:
| Seeing a lot of criticism towards Sundar lately, and it's not
| without merit. There is blood in the water now and I wouldn't be
| surprised if his time is limited.
|
| He is good as a caretaker who didn't rock the boat, but Google
| needs bold innovation and competence if it intends on staying
| relevant in the years to come.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > I wouldn't be surprised if his time is limited.
|
| Good riddance.
|
| > who didn't rock the boat
|
| He was chosen for his exceptional ability to not rock the boat.
| Unfortunately, that's about the only skill he's displayed so
| far (oh yeah, and being "thoughtful" about stuff).
| abudabi123 wrote:
| Google Prepared Transformer => GPT, that has a nice marketing
| ring and clearly claims the invention/innovation. Google took
| their eye off the ball and fumbled. A "goto market" division
| could have helped the inventors/innovators.
| BeefWellington wrote:
| AI is the new "Big Data", though maybe it has one or two
| practical use cases for larger companies.
| [deleted]
| thrilled2behere wrote:
| If I were IBM management, I'd be getting a laugh out of all of
| this. When IBM had to scale back their ambitions for Watson,
| especially those related to automating medical diagnoses, they
| were roundly mocked. Do not ask, dear tech companies, for whom
| the bell of AI overpromising tolls - it tolls for thee!
| danpalmer wrote:
| I agree in principle, but Watson was a lot of different things,
| mostly unrelated to any "modern" AI tech.
|
| Edit: the Watson that played Jeopardy was smart (for that time)
| natural language processing, that backed on to a large fact
| store, generated from natural language processing of a
| relatively small set of sources like Wikipedia.
|
| The Watson that was sold to companies was essentially a
| consulting service. I'm sure they had some re-usable
| components, but it's possible those components weren't much
| more than data pipelines, model training, etc. Most of the
| smarts were people doing a ton of data science specific to each
| problem. Worthwhile, but only good compared to companies who
| don't have a data science function.
|
| Conversely, "modern" AI is things like LLMs, which have their
| own problems of course, but are a huge paradigm shift compared
| to Watson.
| ur-whale wrote:
| Watson was always vaporware, with a marketing message designed
| to seduce know-nothing middle-managers in large corporations.
|
| There never was any tech. backing it up.
| ouid wrote:
| Has sundar been a good CEO otherwise?
| blululu wrote:
| Well he sat at the helm of a very powerful company during one
| of the largest and longest bull markets in history. Beyond
| being at the right place at the right time - did he do a good
| job? I would say that he is thoroughly mediocre. I don't get
| the sense that he is very strong as a technically oriented
| leader or as a product oriented leader. He seems more of a
| political/consensus leader who is trying to keep the peace
| without any principle other than 'be respectful'. You can see
| the problems growing. Costs grow faster than revenue and
| irrelevant projects drag on, while nobody is providing a clear
| vision about why anyone should care and why these product are
| going to be the best. Google does fine without too much
| leadership so maybe this isn't the worst. That said I think he
| would be remembered more positively if he were to be fired in
| the next 6 months.
| robofanatic wrote:
| He survived for 8+ years as a Google CEO and 4+ years as
| Alphabet CEO. Tells that he has done few things OK.
| [deleted]
| modeless wrote:
| He is world class at being inoffensive. He's great at
| testifying to Congress.
| jwestbury wrote:
| Testifying to Congress is a pretty key skill for a Google
| CEO at the moment, to be fair.
| modeless wrote:
| Yes, these are unironically extremely difficult skills
| which were critical for a Google CEO over the last 10
| years. Maybe the next 10 years will be different though.
| xoogler2004 wrote:
| hahahahhahahahahah
| mc32 wrote:
| Better than say a former industry stalwart like Jack Welch.
| He's vanilla and sometimes vanilla is what you need to steer a
| steady course.
| blindriver wrote:
| He has brought no innovation and his fearfulness has ground
| Google down to a halt. What new successful products has arrived
| during his tenure? All he did was not fuck up.
|
| He's lucky because the entire market has increased, but that's
| his doing. He could be replaced by any overly cautious
| algorithm and the results would have been the same.
| malfist wrote:
| Stadia! Oh wait..
| theGnuMe wrote:
| Before he was CEO he led the Chrome, ChromeOS/Chromebook,
| Google Drive projects.
|
| What is interesting though, according to Wikipedia, is that
| he is not a software engineer nor a computer scientist by
| training. He is a materials scientist with an MBA and
| apparently briefly worked at McKinsey.
|
| Does this limit his tech vision? Hard to say.
|
| Satya Nadella however has a Master's in Computer Science + an
| MBA comparatively.
| muzz wrote:
| Sounds more like Tim Cook
| blululu wrote:
| Going to have to disagree with you on this. AirPods and the
| Apple Watch both came out under his watch. But the biggest
| area of expansion for Apple is going to be in software
| which has seen a ton of innovation in the past decade
| (Cloud services, payments and a whole slew of improvements
| to the OS) which all happened under Cook's watch.
| snapcaster wrote:
| Airpods, apple watch, m1 processors. I'm sure there are
| others but I've bought and enjoyed a bunch of new apple
| products since Tim Cook took over
| aix1 wrote:
| I think the current reality is that Sundar is more of a
| figurehead, with Ruth calling the shots.
| nivenkos wrote:
| Stadia was a massive lost opportunity, they had no unique games
| (i.e. using server-side co-locality for multiplayer, etc.) nor
| a decent subscription to compete with MS Games Pass.
| gg-plz wrote:
| Sundar is good at keeping things running as-is.
|
| He was elevated to CEO of Google to keep things running as-is
| while the founders moved their exciting ventures up to
| Alphabet. When those other bets were abandoned, Sundar was left
| as the top engaged executive, but he's still only a caretaker
| when the company needs an actual leader with vision to navigate
| their competition.
|
| So, no. He has not been a good CEO. He was a good middle-
| manager and a decent CEO at best, but he's not been what the
| company needed, and he's definitely not what they need today.
| substation13 wrote:
| It's true. Even Ballmer had a vision.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Leadership with actual visions is a rarity these days
| _across the board_. It 's not just large companies who are
| getting their lunch eaten by startups left and right (
| _cough_ Oracle), but also politics. Most people in high
| positions want the fame associated with the title (and for
| companies, the compensation), but not provide leadership
| beyond managing the status quo - and to make it worse, both
| shareholders and voters seem to prefer stability over
| progress.
| sylens wrote:
| I feel like there is no vision for the future of Android there
| except chasing the iPhone. In the early part of the last
| decade, Android had its own identity which was part of the
| reason I used it. When it lost that, I moved to iPhone.
| muzz wrote:
| What do you mean by "its own identity"?
|
| If you're saying that Android and iPhone/iOS are very
| similar, that seems like a good thing?
| sylens wrote:
| It doesn't seem like a good thing for Google in that they
| are trying to sell Pixel phones at iPhone level prices
| without having the fit and finish, battery life, or app
| ecosystem that iOS has.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| With 150,000 employees, you can write an article saying "Google
| employees say X ..." regarding pretty much any subject under the
| sun. So why was this particular article written, which refers to
| .002% of the company?
| ragnarsson wrote:
| clicks
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I wonder if this is going to end up like Waymo vs tesla. Remember
| when people were criticizing waymo for going too slowly (tesla
| expects to put level 9000 self driving in millions of cars by the
| end of <five years ago>!!)? But it turned out that doing it in a
| way that the market requires was slower than commentators
| expected, and waymo seems to still have a great shot at being the
| leader.
|
| Or maybe it ends up like uber vs lyft. The cost of using LLMs is
| so high, maybe we see products with unsustainable economics in
| the quest for dominance, followed by something shittier.
|
| Personally, I'm in the camp that google is in a great position
| specifically because of their TPUs. They already have the infra
| to do this at crazy scale _including the hardware_. I 'm betting
| it's a marathon, not a sprint, before we see an economically
| sustainable LLM based interact-with-all-of-human-knowledge tool
| like we're expecting. ChatGPT has spoiled our expectations by
| being free.
| 2h wrote:
| > The cost of using LLMs is so high
|
| Thats true, but they could just use MLLs instead. Much cheaper.
| [deleted]
| sys32768 wrote:
| I'm excited for Google's AI to ingest the ~40 million titles in
| the Google Books library.
| college_physics wrote:
| ChatGPT is neither an earthquake nor a tectonic plate faultline.
| Along with ever improving algos in nearby domains (images, speech
| etc) it is a signal, of sorts, of the slowly accumulating energy
| that will, eventually, unleash the next phase of information
| technology.
|
| It is not an accident, imho, that it is Microsoft that somehow
| emerges as Google's "nemesis". After all it was MS' business
| model that Google disrupted with mass market "freebies" such as
| gmail, docs etc. While "disrupting search" might be the immediate
| skirmish, the bigger battle is about broadly defined "AI
| augmented information management": who will offer it to the
| masses, under which business model etc.
|
| My feeling (nowhere near a complete analysis) is that Google will
| lose this war even if, as it is widely assumed, it has the
| technical advantage. This is because it has been happily cornered
| in an extremely lucrative but ultimately dead-end business model.
| AI augmentation as part of its existing search/adtech model is a
| marginal and even problematic (loss making) addition, whereas as
| part a re-invented MS it can blow new life into its old bread-
| and-butter business that has been commoditized. A wildcard in all
| this is (as always) Apple, but whatever its eventual approach to
| AI, it is likely to be just another headwind for Google.
|
| NB: I am a lifelong open source enthusiast, I have no stake or
| love for any of the above entities. The ideal, least dangerous,
| most beneficial form of AI augmentation would be as a widely
| available and open source digital public good.
| skullone wrote:
| It's hard to differentiate the various dumpster fires going on at
| Google right now. And I don't think they're all the CEOs fault.
| dhaulagiri wrote:
| Everything is your fault when you're the CEO
| Yuioup wrote:
| He takes full responsibility /s
| hinkley wrote:
| Responsibility?
|
| He's full of it.
| [deleted]
| dboreham wrote:
| Does this make Alphabet stock a buy? In general I have a rule to
| never invest in adtech-based companies but a 12% discount is
| attractive.
|
| Edit: a quick look at the chart shows the drop was off a recent
| peak and current price is roughly the 3mth mean. Tempest in
| teacup then.
| mc32 wrote:
| There will always be people who think they knew better. It's not
| the end of Google or their Bard. It's an emotional outburst
| precipitated by lousy HR numbers. People are fearful and need to
| lash out a bit. Ars is riding the slight wave of disenchantment
| among a few emps.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Xoogler here.
|
| I'll ignore the AI and "has Google lost its way?" threads, not
| that they're not interesting.
|
| Rather, Sundar: he's the inevitable product when you hire a CEO
| based on his longevity and whether everyone likes him. In the
| military they distinguish between a "barracks general" and a
| "combat general." He's the former. He looks good when nothing bad
| is happening.
| oofta-boofta wrote:
| Whew boy you hit the nail on the head. Google just seems to be
| aimless at this point, and now with the layoffs (despite their
| immense profitability) they're going to have a much tougher
| time hiring and retaining top talent.
| warning26 wrote:
| I don't understand why the board hasn't ousted Sundar yet --
| has he even spearheaded a single successful initiative that
| wasn't sunsetted within a few years?
|
| Seems like you could make an LLM generate product ideas and
| it would be about equally effective.
| cheeze wrote:
| Where is the top talent going to go? Seems like a vast
| majority of FAANG* ended up laying folks off.
| pphysch wrote:
| Microsoft's GitHub, which is apparently at the forefront of
| the "LLM revolution" with Copilot, also announced significant
| cost-cuts. What's your point?
| MisterPea wrote:
| See also Buggins' Turn:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggins%27_turn
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I hadn't heard that one, and having read all 20 of the
| Aubrey/Maturin books twice, I'm not unfamiliar with the Royal
| Navy. Thanks!
| itsdrewmiller wrote:
| Sounds like Ben Horowitz's peacetime CEO/wartime CEO, which
| even uses google as an example -
| https://a16z.com/2011/04/14/peacetime-ceo-wartime-ceo
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > Peacetime CEO spends time defining the culture. Wartime CEO
| lets the war define the culture.
|
| Beautifully put.
|
| I knew there was some reason why I'm so irresistibly drawn to
| books about warfare.
|
| Patton in WW II was the quintessential wartime general. Even
| though it WAS a war, his style was too much for Eisenhower.
| Until the Battle of the Bulge.
| dc-programmer wrote:
| I consider Grant the ultimate when the rubber hits the road
| guy. In his interbellum years he was kind of an aimless
| loser but when the stakes could not be higher, he stepped
| up and lead the union to victory.
| matwood wrote:
| You touched on something else I wanted to mention - that
| there is nothing wrong with a peacetime general as long as
| you're not at war. Your point about Patton is spot on, he
| needs a war or his style is too much.
|
| I see this in startups. The people/leadership you need to
| go from 0->1 are often not the same people to go from 1->N.
|
| To bring this back around to Google. People are talking
| about the CEO, but does Google have the rank and file ready
| to go to war?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| having been out for 5 1/2 years, I can't say for sure.
| But even in 2017, there were a large number of "born on
| third base and think they hit a triple" people.
| andrewprock wrote:
| I am constantly amazed that chat bots so completely capture
| imagination.
|
| They have been, and will always be a hollow shell of interaction.
| Has social drive atrophied so much that many (most under 30?)
| prefer to talk to nothing instead of taking to someone?
| Sebb767 wrote:
| ChatGPT does produce useful content right now. Maybe not
| necessarily information, but definitely boilerplate text and
| code. Also, a child can interact with it, no problem.
|
| It might not be a social interaction, but it's really not hard
| to imagine that it has a lot of potential.
| lysecret wrote:
| I am super excited about ChatGPT even just yesterday it helped me
| fix a really difficult bug. (I was so excited that I even wanted
| to pay for it but their payment was broken haha)
|
| However, I am starting to think that moving it to bing already
| wasn't a smart move. These things are great on OpenAI scale. But
| I fear they are a money pit with bad pr for google and even bing
| scale.
| hnfong wrote:
| > it helped me fix a really difficult bug
|
| Tell us more?
| GuB-42 wrote:
| From outside, I found it to be a dubious move myself.
|
| ChatGPT went first, nothing Google does will change that, that's
| too late. The only thing they can do if they don't want to lose
| face is the "we didn't make it available because we want to do it
| well" strategy. It has been used many times by Apple when
| competitors beat them at some features, so much that it has
| become a meme at some point, but it worked.
|
| And I've seen hints of Google going in that direction, pointing
| out things like reliability issues most people came to know about
| by now, implying that they already can do what ChatGPT can do,
| but unlike their competitors, they don't release half-assed
| products.
|
| But their latest announcement breaks everything, they are
| essentially admitting defeat. They didn't manage to be the first
| to market, and they can't claim they took their time to release a
| quality product instead. So it was either a terrible
| communication blunder, or they really didn't have much choice,
| with the latter being a real possibility, I understand investors
| reactions.
| ergocoder wrote:
| Google has lost its way since they have switched their own mantra
| from "user-first" to "AI-first".
|
| On the flip side, I think Microsoft has made a strategic mistake
| of going after search openly. Satya literally called out Google
| to compete.
|
| Google also has a lot of money and will not lose easily. This war
| is going to cost a lot of money for both of them.
| [deleted]
| rank0 wrote:
| The blowback about googles response is unreasonable. Everyone is
| making some wild assumptions about gpt-based search. We don't
| even know yet if it's fit to replace a search engine.
|
| Why not wait for a moment and see what unfolds? ChatGPT has only
| been alive for a few months. Why does google need an answer
| immediately? They should take their time and be calculated
| instead of rushing out some half baked AI search solution.
|
| How is GPT-search supposed to be profitable anyways? The
| traditional model of targeted advertising would be insufferable
| if injected into a chat bot.
| Clubber wrote:
| >We don't even know yet if it's fit to replace a search engine.
|
| Entrenched tech companies are desperate for the next big thing.
| Tech is pretty stale right now. I suspect they're trying to
| will ChatGPT to be that. Think 3D TV's and VR. Kinda cool for
| the 30 seconds you play with it at the store, but just doesn't
| quite capture the imagination much longer after that.
| formvoltron wrote:
| Sounds like goog employees spending too much time staring at the
| stock price.
| osener wrote:
| Remember when winner of the voice interface war was going to win
| the future of computing? Apple has a "dumpster fire" of a voice
| assistant and they're still around.
| [deleted]
| muzz wrote:
| Every new thing gets hyped up as the "killer" of existing
| businesses.
|
| Siri, Alexa, etc. were all supposed to be existential threats
| to Google's search, and then they weren't
| [deleted]
| drewcon wrote:
| I'm surprised no one has connected ChatGPT to a voice
| interface?
|
| The way it holds conversational context is really leaps and
| bounds better than Alexa/Siri
| scarface74 wrote:
| No one at any point thought that voice interaction would be
| dominant.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| I could not believe Sundar and the team around him for a simple
| unforced error:
|
| "That's why we re-oriented the company around AI six years ago"
|
| I suppose this was meant to reframe the conversation around
| Google being a leader, but I think it has the opposite effect. It
| comes off as defensive and of course, quite honestly, if you
| planted the flag so much earlier, why don't you have a product to
| show for it in the way that OpenAI does?
|
| What's perhaps more interesting though: does Google have an
| innovator's dilemma here?
|
| Google built a flywheel that drives its ads business: sites are
| hungry for traffic so they structure in such a way that attracts
| Google's attention, and that structure in turn helps Google serve
| relevant ads. People tend to click on the first link (the most
| relevant link).
|
| In the context of a chat interface, what happens if there is no
| link? Or only one result (the perfect answer)? What if there is
| much less traffic going directly to websites? And yet without
| that long tail of websites, how do you train your language model
| to know the answer?
|
| Fascinating times!
| npalli wrote:
| Here's the weird thing though, as discussed yesterday [1], the
| Microsoft demo was totally broken as well. In the end, everyone
| is looking for a big platform shift (next MOBILE!!!) and hype
| getting ahead of reality. When we look back in 3 months we will
| wonder why we thought LLM/GPT type queries will replace search in
| all forms.
|
| https://dkb.blog/p/bing-ai-cant-be-trusted
| segmondy wrote:
| Nothing weird about it. It's called first mover's advantage.
| Wanna make electric cars, you have to beat Tesla. No matter how
| nice your car is. If your range is worse. Booo. If your self
| driving is equivalent or worse, Boo. Whatever Tesla has done,
| you must be better at. You need better design, cheaper price,
| better range, better reliability else no one would notice you.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| The problem with this analysis is that first movers usually
| don't win.
| alex_sf wrote:
| They usually don't win in the long-run because someone
| comes along with
|
| > better design, cheaper price, better range, better
| reliability
|
| That doesn't mean the first mover advantage doesn't exist.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| First movers are the first to hit the innovater's
| dilemma.
|
| They are trapped by the decisions they made as first
| movers, while later incumbents have freedom to create
| improvements without worry about the installed base.
|
| Apple is one company that never seemed to fall into that
| trap. They just tell the installed base "fuck you, buy
| the new thing" and somehow get away with it.
| smachiz wrote:
| They're also very very rarely the first mover.
|
| Apple comes in and innovates against something that
| existed but was user hostile.
|
| It actually did happen to Apple over a long enough
| horizon, they cornered the paid digital music market by
| perfecting it, and upended it, and didn't innovate/upend
| again, and along came Spotify to upend it for them.
| ralfd wrote:
| It depends on the definition what "first" means.
|
| For example Amazon Kindle was not the first eReader. But
| its platform-ecosystem was years sooner than Barnes &
| Nobles Nook and Kindle won out.
|
| Amazon itself is technically a "second mover" because there
| was an obscure online book shop before, but no one else
| from the established sales companies or Walmart could
| compete with them.
|
| Tesla was not the first electric car. But it is arguably
| the first reaching a production of a million, so it is the
| first e-car from a "main" manufacturer?
| burtness wrote:
| This sounds more like "incumbent" than "first"
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Incumbent companies have huge advantages, and it takes a
| lot to dislodge them even with new technology (as in your
| Amazon example.) Basically they have to be unwilling to
| match competitors' tech over a long period of time.
|
| In my life I've seen that happen a handful of times. When
| it does, it's usually due to (1) tragic management
| ineptitude over an extended period of time, or (2) fear
| of cannibalizing an existing profitable business (e.g.,:
| Kodak refusing to move from film to digital cameras, or
| the car industry being slow to re-invest away from ICE
| production.) I see no evidence (yet) that AI-enhanced
| search is going to threaten Google's core business of
| "displaying ads on relevant search results", so the main
| risk here is long-term management failure. Right now
| Google's management is doing everything it can to signal
| (to shareholders and partners) that they're going to
| throw every resource they have at the problem.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Kodak actually had one of the first digital cameras, and
| the company still exists. And automotive OEMs are
| investing heavily into EVs, and they do this
| comparatively fast for companies of the size we are
| talking about.
| pjc50 wrote:
| "Find the company that survived and got big, then
| carefully move the historical goalpost so it's first"
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| In the long run, sure. In the short to medium term, though,
| they solidly dominate the field.
|
| We're still in that phase phase of both Tesla and Bing AI.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| In the short term Google has an utterly dominant position
| in Search, and Bing AI is basically irrelevant to this.
| What people are worried about are the implications for
| the long term.
| darthrupert wrote:
| I don't give a fuck about Bing, frankly, but ChatGPT (the
| actual first mover here) has already replaced a lot of
| what I used Google for during a work day.
|
| I'll be their paying customer soon. It would be great if
| that meant I had privacy as well, but I kinda bleakly
| realize that that might be a bit of a pipe dream.
| l33tman wrote:
| The big improvement in the chatgpt integrated by bing is
| that it can take today's search results into the chat to
| analyze seamlessly (after all, Bing already has all the
| search results cached internally). ChatGPT as it stands
| has old knowledge only unless you paste in the results
| you want to analyze.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Over the past 2 weeks I've barely used Google. I just ask
| ChatGPT. The results it produces are just superior to
| Google in every way.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If I were the EU, I would perhaps consider slapping
| restrictions on Google's Chat AI (say, Bard) as being a
| separate field (AI-Assisted Search) being propped up by a
| monopoly in Standard Search. That would hurt Google's
| dominance quicker than any other action. Same for the
| DOJ.
|
| Remember how much trouble Microsoft got into for having a
| basic monopoly on desktops with Windows, and trying to
| bundle Internet Explorer? Replace Windows with Standard
| Google, and Internet Explorer with AI-based Google
| Search. You'll cut Google off at the knees with that
| move. And even if they survive the ~4-5 years litigation,
| they'll be severely hampered, kind of like how Microsoft
| was with the mobile phone market.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| The comment you replied to makes no mentions of
| timelines, and everything they said applies up to the
| point the first mover falls, which is clearly not the
| long term per your own argument.
|
| The goal posts also aren't "search" they're "AI enhanced
| search", let's not muddy the waters by moving them.
| Google may certainly be dominating in search, but they
| are clearly trying to sprint from miles behind in the
| latter.
| [deleted]
| monkmartinez wrote:
| I have switched to Bing and Edge, then wrote a script to
| rack up points in hopes that I get moved up for the new
| BingGPT. Google search results have been trending toward
| crap for a while from my POV. 'Google it' is sticky, but
| I absolutely have not missed a beat with Edge and Bing.
| In fact, Edge has been a really pleasant surprise with
| features Chrome doesn't have. A calculator in the side
| bar is fracking awesome!
| phkahler wrote:
| >> A calculator in the side bar is fracking awesome!
|
| Another case of the browser doing what the OS and Desktop
| environment should be doing. I like to point at tabs -
| DEs and GUI toolkits never really came up with a good way
| to handle multiple documents well.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I think every major OS ships with some sort of
| calculator. The problem is discoverability. If you're in
| the middle of browsing, it's quite a bit of effort to say
| "oh that's right I have a calculator on here let me just
| find it in the start menu/Applications folder" as opposed
| to it _just being there_ in the same app you 're already
| using.
|
| Widgets would be a potential solution but they keep being
| tried and abandoned soon after in desktop OSes.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > Widgets would be a potential solution but they keep
| being tried and abandoned soon after in desktop OSes.
|
| There's still a calculator widget for the MacOS
| notification center. It's accessed in any app through a
| trackpad gesture or by clicking on the date/time in the
| menu bar.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| For now. This is what, the third iteration of widgets on
| Mac?
|
| The fact that it seems to be similar enough to the iOS
| implementation of them gives me hope, but only barely.
|
| You also need to know the feature exists (they had
| notifications before widgets, people might not know it
| was updated to support them), that there exists a
| calculator widget, and to add it before you need to use
| it. That's the same discoverabiloty problem, with the
| added wrinkle that functionality changed in Monterey.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > For now.
|
| For most of the past decade. I believe widgets were added
| to Notification center in 2014.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| High Sierra widgets are the second implementation I
| mentioned.
|
| Dashboard was first, and then they were reimagined as
| iOS-style in Monterey.
| mejutoco wrote:
| In linux I press the super key (windows key), type "calc"
| and enter.
|
| In Mac Os one can use spotlight with cmd + space with
| similar results.
|
| Or sometimes I check a calculator I implemented myself
| (shameless plug: https://getcalculator.app/)
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I mean, you can do Win+R and then "calc" on windows too,
| but that's still context switching and having to remember
| it's there.
|
| Once again, compared to it just _being there in front of
| you and ready to go_ that 's still work to do to get it
| there.
| Thlom wrote:
| On my mac I just use the built in calculator in
| spotlight. So cmd+space opens the spotlight search widget
| and then I can just type in whatever I need calculated.
| Not sure if something like this is built into Windows?
| More often than not I use Google as my calculator when on
| Windows.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I use Raycast for the same, but does that do multiple
| calculations? Ie. 184 + 64 then multiplied by 4, etc.
|
| You can do it all as one big expression with parentheses
| and such but if you're doing a bunch of calculations on
| the go that could get repetitive, and one wrong Esc and
| your calculation goes away.
| nwienert wrote:
| Bing isn't dominating anything haha.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Bing's image search is better than google's. Hands down.
| While this has been popularized for ...ehem...nsfw
| reasons, it's also _very_ useful to find charts and
| visualizations related to a particular topic. As an
| example, I was searching for charts that showed laptop vs
| desktop market share, and bam! There 's the latest
| projections.
| schrodinger wrote:
| Tangent: I wonder if Bing has an advantage in that most
| people perform SEO for Google; so long as Bing has
| different algos it may be "immune" to Google-focused seo?
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I mean, they certainly are in the "AI integrated search"
| field, considering.... You know.... This entire post and
| discussion happening.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Google isn't going to suffer severe business consequences
| for (temporarily) losing dominance in the "AI integrated
| search" field, because the revenue from that field is
| effectively NaN compared to Google's current revenue.
| They might hypothetically suffer if AI integrated search
| grows to become a major fraction of the existing Search
| revenue and Google fails to deploy their massive existing
| ML/AI resources to match Bing/OpenAI's unpatented, non-
| secret and easily-replicated techniques. _And big firms
| have made such strategic errors in the past!_ But none of
| that is going to happen in the short term.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Please show me exactly where I said otherwise.
|
| Read the comment thread you just replied to and tell me
| how any of what you just said is relevant to me
| correcting the sentence "Bing isn't dominating anything
| haha."
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Good point. It's also dominating in the segment of "web
| search companies called Bing".
| nwienert wrote:
| You said they are dominating "AI search" but that's wrong
| in many ways:
|
| - Google's entire search engine has had many layers of
| "AI" powering it for years.
|
| - Bing hasn't even released this supposed AI search
| engine to the public.
|
| Your other example was Tesla and the two examples
| couldn't be more different. Your statement would be like
| someone saying Tesla was "dominating" electric cars
| before they ever even sold a single Roadster and had just
| posted a demo video. It's just wrong. I can be first to
| market with a banana that glows in the dark, am I in the
| club now too?
|
| They _may_ dominate _if_ this exact form of
| conversational answers proves popular and _if_ launched
| more than a hacked together demo and only then is some
| strong claim they are doing anything interesting could be
| worthwhile.
|
| Until then they are kind-of first-but-actually-not-really
| in a kind-of-theoretical-market, and not dominating it
| all or reaping any first-mover advantage given their
| opponents are ready to follow on immediately.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Just because Google uses AI for things like ranking does
| not put them in the same category as a search engine with
| AI integrated. I hope you realize that. There's a clear
| differentiator at play with Bard and New Bing, and that's
| the space people are talking about.
|
| The market exists. Products have been announced. Some are
| clearly more popular than others. I don't know why you
| care so much that Google beats Bing, but it's plainly
| obvious both from people's and Google's own reactions
| that Bing is currently considered the winner in the
| space.
|
| Will it last? Maybe. Maybe not. The very thread you are
| replying to is that first movers ultimately fail. But
| it's plainly clear Bing has captured the first mover
| advantage in the space, whether you like it or not.
| xorcist wrote:
| On the topic of big companies making strategic errors,
| it's not entirely unthinkable that if AI generates a lot
| of hype, Google would throw away its market-dominating
| search engine and replace it with some AI chatbot-thing
| without market dominance.
|
| It could very well be that even a small chance of this
| happening can cause Microsoft to go all in on making Bing
| more AI. Being very expensive is the point.
|
| See also: Star Wars, Itanium.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It will be interesting to see how the next few years play
| out in the EV space. Tesla suddenly has actual
| competition that is very good. Arguably better, aside
| from that nagging little detail -- the charger network.
| Tesla needs to keep throwing money at the Supercharger
| network and do whatever they can to keep it exclusive.
| Anything that puts the competition on an equal playing
| field for fast charging would be devastating to Tesla's
| market share.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Yes, I'm quite excited to see the new EVs coming out in
| the next few years. Still like my Tesla but the list of
| grievances grows over time.
|
| I think they'll ultimately have to open up the charging
| to get federal funding, but it'll be interesting to see
| what happens when they do. It's _definitely_ a massive
| advantage right now.
| p4coder wrote:
| I think the charging network is going to prove to be the
| iMessage of Tesla. By keeping it closed, they will be
| selling many more cars. In Europe where they had to use
| the standard port and open the network, there will be
| much stiffer competition.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| That happened 4 years ago, and Tesla has done nothing but
| increase sales in Europe since then. I'm sure this will
| change as traditional car manufacturers improve their EV
| lineups. Europe in general also has a lot more options
| for the EV charging market so I don't think the SuC
| network is as pronounced there.
|
| The Model Y was the top selling model in Europe in
| December 2022. EV or ICE. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ne
| ilwinton/2022/12/07/model-y--...
|
| It will probably make a bigger impact in the US. And the
| switch to a standard interface is holding up billions in
| federal funding so Tesla will probably eventually take
| the hit.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| It's unlikely Tesla's market share of _the total car
| market_ is going to go down no matter how well other
| companies do. What we 're seeing is a general shift
| towards electric cars, which is only a good thing for
| Tesla.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Yes, in this case when I say 'market share' I mean EV
| market share.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| My point is more that you used the word "devastating"
| when there's nothing negative happening to Tesla in that
| situation
| MockObject wrote:
| Old enough to remember when Google was the plucky newcomer
| in a crowded search engine industry.
| klyrs wrote:
| Google wasn't profitable. Like an ant eating the wrong
| sort of fungus, the advertising companies won and
| Google's zombified husk carries on.
| riskneutral wrote:
| Cordyceps fungi
| hmahncke wrote:
| Old enough to remember when Alta Vista was obviously
| going to win because it came from DEC.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| Or you need a big differentiator which makes you the new
| first mover.
| bitexploder wrote:
| You don't even always need a big differentiator. We got rid
| of our Tesla sacrificing range to have normal vehicle
| controls. Some times tech just gets good enough that being
| the first mover can't beat the entrenched players
| inevitability and willingness to give customers what they
| ask for instead of insisting you will like something you
| never asked for, even after you try it and tell them you
| don't like the thing they insist you will like. Tesla has
| gone all in on things like touch screens and non-standard
| controls and it has literally lost them our business twice.
| I would have bought a Model S Plaid if it just had a normal
| steering wheel. No questions asked. And my partner would
| have kept her Model 3 if it didn't have such annoying
| vehicle controls for certain things. Little stuff really
| matters and Tesla sticks their head in the sand over it
| while Audi will happily make you a pretty normal SUV that
| happens to be zippy and electric.
| senko wrote:
| Tesla wasn't a first mover. Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt were
| both on the market roughtly 2 years before Model S.
|
| Also, you don't really need to beat Tesla if you just want to
| make (and sell) electric cars. Tesla doesn't fill every niche
| and is nowhere near enough in terms of volume to satisfy the
| EV demand.
|
| (If you want to be a bigger electric car company than Tesla
| then you have to beat Tesla, yeah -- that's a tautology, not
| an interesting observation tho).
| ladyattis wrote:
| I think second mover has a better chance to succeed, even
| from the first mover themselves (Apple had many ideas for
| touchscreen devices but most flopped until the 2000s).
| Iteration on a good enough device or platform will always
| give you more success than iterating on a false premise (ex.
| the metaverse).
| maeln wrote:
| Telsa is a very good exemple because they just about got
| beaten off in every category (except maybe the driver
| assistance features). If you want a cheaper car with a
| smaller range than the model 3, but still decent, you can
| look at Volkswagen, Renault, Peugeot, Kia and Hyundai. If you
| want higher range (and premium/luxury feel) you can look at
| BMW/Audi/Mercedes.
|
| And pretty much all of them have better QC and a vaster
| maintenance network than Tesla (and in the E.U the charging
| network all use the same type of connector, so you are not
| tied to the manufacturer of your car).
|
| But still, whenever you talk electric car, people often talk
| first about Tesla and they have no problem selling them. This
| might mostly be true in the E.U though. Also the model 3 is
| still priced fairly well being in-between the higher-end of
| the market and the intermediate.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Apple came after Blackberry. Dell came after Commodore /
| Amiga. Facebook came after MySpace. Google came after
| Altavisa and Yahoo. Verizon came after AOL. Alternating
| Current came after Direct Current.
|
| Microsoft Word came after WordPerfect. Chrome came after
| Netscape Communicator. Python came after Perl. Nintendo came
| after Atari.
|
| I feel like first movers advantage is a myth.
| nkozyra wrote:
| > I feel like first movers advantage is a myth.
|
| Maybe. No company lives forever, at some point all of these
| things will be unseated. But those first movers had pretty
| good runs, as far as technology companies go. Maybe they
| aren't still #1 but if you're #1 for a decade or more, that
| might be as much as any one company can "win" here.
| ericlewis wrote:
| Apple came after blackberry, but as the parent comment
| states... you have to be _much better_ and by all accounts
| the iPhone _was_ much better at things consumers cared
| about. Dell made better computers. Facebook was nicer than
| myspace in UI /UX. Google returned superior results.
|
| So their point stands. They have to be much better. And all
| of these were.
| smachiz wrote:
| Yes, basically, when you stop innovating and are only
| doing incremental improvement, someone is going to come
| and eat your lunch.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| I think you confirmed what he was saying.
|
| All of those products that came after are better than the
| first movers. If Apple was worse than BB, do you think it
| would have won?
| edgyquant wrote:
| Every single one of those things you just listed is an
| improvement in one or more ways (to the average user.) So I
| really don't see your point at all
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| > Apple came after Blackberry.
|
| Apple and specifically Jony Ive started the development of
| a handheld computer in the early 90s. Apple was definitely
| not a second comer to that market.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/jony-ives-first-apple-
| design...
| tapoxi wrote:
| Well the Newton was the second attempt by Apple, first
| they spun off General Magic and then pivoted when GM
| built hype and Apple remained a minority owner.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Apple and specifically Jony Ive started the development
| of a handheld computer in the early 90s. Apple was
| definitely not a second comer to that market.
|
| That's an odd way to define "not a second comer". The
| Apple Newton was a PDA, but it wasn't the first to hit
| the market.
|
| Sure, it was in development before that, but that's true
| of every device that was released in that generation. And
| besides, "first mover advantage" doesn't refer to the
| first to begin research on a product; it refers to the
| first to release a product into the market.
| xorcist wrote:
| One thing a lot of people misremembers is just how long it
| took. Microsoft Word was launched only couple of years
| after WordPerfect, in the early 80s. It didn't dominate
| word processing until the middle of the 90s.
|
| It took more than a decade. They basically built out the
| features and waited until their competitors made some
| strategic mistake, of which they made several in that
| decade.
|
| It was pretty much the same with Netscape and MSIE. That
| monopoly misuse probably helped, but Netscape also seemed
| bent on killing itself. Despite the mismanagement, it still
| took almost five years.
|
| Perl was more popular than Python for more than a decade.
| Having much of the early web developed on it didn't help in
| the long run. First mover advantage might be a thing, but
| it never wins in the long run. And in the long run, ten
| years is nothing.
| neilv wrote:
| > _They basically built out the features and waited until
| their competitors made some strategic mistake,_
|
| Microsoft Word was a loser, but then they changed out the
| operating system under the winners.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| Yes, but the winner also refused to get with the times
| and embrace the operating system twice. First, they were
| abysmally slow to Windows 3.1, despite having years to
| get something together (in part b/c they understood that
| Microsoft wanted to win at word processing but they
| underestimated the importance of being on the OS anyway)
| and then a few years later with Windows 95.
|
| Word Perfect had the OS changed from under them but also
| had every warning that the change was coming and refused
| to move to sturdier ground.
| neilv wrote:
| That's too bad.
|
| It was pretty easy to write off Windows 3.1, and continue
| to be a solid solution on MS-DOS and with Netware, etc.
|
| But Windows 95 had a lot of fanfare in advance that
| suggested it would have much better uptake. And Windows
| NT in parallel was developing a credible foundation, and
| it got the "new shell" as an option around the time of
| Win95. My recollection at the time was that the writing
| should've been on the wall, that Windows was going to be
| the Microsoft platform.
|
| If WordPerfect was slow to move, that's a bad combination
| with, er, not as direct of access to the platform teams.
| wombatpm wrote:
| Perl killed itself with the Perl5 transition to Perl6. I
| lived the 3->4 and the 4->5 transitions. When I wanted to
| try my hand at OOP, I ran screaming from Perl5 to Scheme
| and eventually Python.
|
| 20 years later I'm still programming in Python.
| mindcrime wrote:
| _I feel like first movers advantage is a myth._
|
| I don't think there's any question that there is _an_
| advantage to being a first mover. What I think is a mistake
| is thinking that it 's an absolute advantage, and/or not
| recognizing that it's _also_ true that there are advantages
| to to _not_ being the first mover. I mean, there 's a
| reason why the "fast follower strategy"[1] exists as well.
|
| I think in reality though, all of this is over-simplifying
| things. There are a LOT of variables in the equation for
| "does this product succeed or not" where "being first to
| market" is just one of those variables.
|
| [1]: https://fourweekmba.com/fast-follower/
| MisterPea wrote:
| First movers without a fast follower is a huge advantage.
| There's a great conference talk with Bezos about how he
| mentioned with disruptive products, there's usually a
| fast follower entering into the competition - but he was
| surprised at how long it took other companies to copy
| AWS.
|
| Similarly with Tesla
| gkoberger wrote:
| Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm convinced it's the opposite... I think
| in 5 years we'll look back and wonder why it wasn't more
| obvious to everyone. I think in 5 years, almost every single
| company that exists now will look radically different due to
| what we're starting to see now.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Microsoft's demo wasn't perfect but everyone worth listening to
| has been saying ChatGPT is fallible this whole time. It was
| well within expectations.
|
| Google however came in with a different expectation. I remember
| something about one of their execs disparaging OpenAI over
| inaccuracies before. If you are going to sling mud, you had
| better make sure you don't have the same problem. Or it makes
| you look like a fool.
| la64710 wrote:
| The main problem is ChatGPT had already caught the public's
| imagination. A somewhat lame announcement of an upcoming
| product feature was actually a significant letdown from
| Google.In retrospect it may have been better if they stayed
| quiet for a while and then unveil something that everyone could
| try out and feel for themselves.
| cokeandpepsi wrote:
| [dead]
| i2infinity wrote:
| Wasn't the first iPhone demo totally buggy as well? It doesn't
| matter. Users have seen what ChatGPT can do, and the community
| was excited that Bing will offer it for free soon and is eager
| to pivot to it.
| scarface74 wrote:
| No the first iPhone demo went off without a hitch. In
| hindsight, we found out that the iPhone hardware and software
| was buggy during the demo and if SJ had deviated even
| slightly from the script it would have crashed.
| layer8 wrote:
| At least they found the phone.
| SergeAx wrote:
| It will not replace, but it may enhance and it also may save
| time clicking on links, just giving a direct answer. It also
| may produce bullshit. But it is worth exploring.
| [deleted]
| strangattractor wrote:
| Let's ask ChatGPT what Pichai should do.
|
| "When an error is made by their AI during a demo, Google's CEO,
| Sundar Pichai, should take the following steps to address the
| situation:
|
| Acknowledge the error: The first step is to acknowledge the
| mistake and apologize for any inconvenience or confusion it may
| have caused. This helps to build trust with the audience and
| demonstrates that the company takes responsibility for their
| technology's shortcomings.
|
| Explain the cause of the error: Pichai should explain the
| technical details of what went wrong and how the error
| occurred. This helps to demonstrate transparency and honesty
| and can help to build credibility with the audience.
|
| Demonstrate the progress made in AI development: Despite the
| error, Pichai should showcase the progress made in AI
| development and highlight other successful demonstrations that
| have taken place. This helps to reassure the audience that the
| technology is making progress and that the company is committed
| to innovation and improvement.
|
| Outline the steps being taken to prevent future errors: Pichai
| should outline the steps that are being taken to prevent
| similar errors from occurring in the future. This can include a
| discussion of the company's testing and development processes
| and any additional measures being put in place to improve the
| reliability of their AI systems.
|
| By taking these steps, Pichai can demonstrate a commitment to
| transparency, innovation, and the improvement of their
| technology while also acknowledging the limitations and
| challenges of AI."
|
| There you go - problem solved.
| andsoitis wrote:
| often, no response is superior. the more things you put out
| there the more material for people to hang critique, rumor,
| etc. of off.
|
| but in these cases ego can make us blind. or the belief that
| just because someone asked a question we have to respond.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Google fears another Google+ moment I guess.
| sva_ wrote:
| People love the underdog, and even though M$ is huge,
| Bing/OpenAI are clearly the underdog here.
| muzz wrote:
| There seems to be an inordinate amount of venom directed at
| Pichai relative to other CEOs
| rvba wrote:
| What did he achieve?
|
| Google search is worse than before.
|
| Youtube recommendations feel worse than before.
|
| Gmail lets in spam (maybe I was unlucky few times).
|
| Android market / play market has very bad search...
|
| Rest is stagnating? Maybe even better, at least they dont
| change it for worse.
|
| They hired thousands of employees yet you cannot contact a
| person. What do those people even do?
|
| "Everyone" (apart the CEO?) knows that in Google you get
| promoted for shipping half baked stuff, so for years they
| ship half baked stuff to kill it few years later.
| thefourthchime wrote:
| It appears that Google's long-standing dominance in search
| has not translated into meaningful innovation in recent
| years. Despite occasional hardware launches that imitate
| Apple and multiple failed attempts to launch a messaging
| platform, there has been a conspicuous lack of successful
| projects.
|
| Furthermore, Google's ongoing incorporation of ads into
| Google Maps and declining search quality may be turning
| search into a wasteland of SEO. This may be the proverbial
| straw that broke the camel's back, prompting discussion about
| whether a leadership change is needed.
| cptcobalt wrote:
| This, exactly. The long term strategy has been demonstrably
| bad.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> It appears that Google's long-standing dominance in
| search has not translated into meaningful innovation in
| recent years.
|
| Google IMHO is still innovating, but still hasn't figured
| out how to turn that into product/profit. Since their P/E
| is under 20 they could just issue a dividend of 4 to 5
| percent and people would immediately stop expecting growth
| from them.
| cptcobalt wrote:
| Innovation without also seeking to mesh it into a
| product/market fit is just burning cash. You can
| innovate, but also need to land it.
|
| Also, they might just be creating a reputation for
| themselves of killing every new interesting thing that
| people just aren't as interested in trying their new
| things. That's a self-own.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Could it be part of the aftermath of the layoffs?
| muzz wrote:
| The reaction to the layoffs is a good example of this.
|
| Lots of CEOs in the past have conducted layoffs pretty much
| the same way-- notify everyone at the same time (per local
| laws) and write an email blaming themselves as the cause.
|
| Yet the media ran article after article for almost 2 weeks
| with personal stories about how people felt particularly
| slighted by Google, when they did it pretty much the same
| way as other companies.
|
| Amongst 12,000 people at any point in time, they will be
| doing normal life things-- like feeding their baby at 2am--
| when they got the email. Yet somehow this became the basis
| of so many "Google doesn't care about its employees"
| stories.
| [deleted]
| saagarjha wrote:
| This is because Google immediately cut access to those
| people and treated them like personas non grata. It was a
| pretty bad layoff.
| muzz wrote:
| Immediately turning off access is common practice in a
| layoff
| saagarjha wrote:
| Not the way Google did it.
| toyg wrote:
| Aftermath of a poor period for Google overall. From the
| outside, Pichai's Google looks very much like Ballmer's
| Microsoft: a company still milking profits generated by
| yesterday's innovation, but unable to produce genuinely-new
| stuff.
| visarga wrote:
| > When we look back in 3 months we will wonder why we thought
| LLM/GPT type queries will replace search in all forms.
|
| Yes, and when we look again in 6 months, they will surpass
| Google already. It happened too many times in the last few
| years - something thought impossible was actually doable with a
| clever twist or two[1].
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQ495wpWXs&t=2148s
| tastyminerals2 wrote:
| Nope. I am somewhat in disbelief about the level people here
| downgrade the recent Bing upgrade. The chatbot feature is a
| such a time saver for jobs where you need to write tons of
| abstract surface-level content. Just yesterday, I tried
| compiling a monthly teachers working plan for some local school
| in Ukrainian language. What it spawned in a minute was at least
| a day of typing work for a human. This is especially useful
| when you don't know the formal language. And the quality of
| this was good enough for bootstrapping.
| mzs wrote:
| Yikes, I don't have access to bing chatbot but google
| translate for Ukrainian is not great compared to Polish or
| Russian. I would not rely on it for any work.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| Did you try deepl? It has been blowing google translate out
| of the water for years now.
| visarga wrote:
| How is that possible? Google has the research power, the
| TPUs, the data, everything. But Translate is not as good
| as a tool made by a much smaller company.
|
| This is also a pattern. Their voices are not better than
| some paid services (NaturalReader for example). Their OCR
| and document understanding is inferior to Amazon
| Textract. Even in speech recognition there is the
| excellent Whisper from OpenAI doing just as good or
| better. Google's generative image models are not the
| best, and locked away for good measure. I think SD and MJ
| rule.
|
| Google's AI was cool in 2000 for search and in 2016 for
| games. But now the best people are leaving them - almost
| the whole team who invented transformers has their own
| startups.
|
| I also think maybe, just maybe, their TPUs are bad and
| they can't scale high quality models to the public. Maybe
| they lost the race because GPUs were better in the end.
| Maybe it's stupid, but how can we explain the lack of
| advanced AI? The other explanation is they won't mess
| with something that makes them so much money (current
| search/ad model).
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| I've found similar... it did a days work for me the other day
| in about 20 seconds.
|
| But is this related to search? I'm a "pro ChatGPT" user (ie,
| I pay) and I don't use it for anything search related. It's
| entirely unrelated.
| conqrr wrote:
| That's really nice, but how will you monetize it? In its chat
| form, that's going to be very difficult. Anyone can train it
| and launch their own LLM, there's know monopoly or
| differentiator. Sure, its possible overtime it will uplift
| search engines, but create a new Industry vertical like
| Search, Mobile, Social Media, Cloud. I think of it more as a
| feature /augmentation than its own thing.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| Services. Inevitably some of the queries involve
| recommending a service, and when you have two equal
| substitute services in a market, both will pay a certain
| price to be recommended over the other.
| notpachet wrote:
| That's a very highfalutin way of saying "ads", which
| feels like it still has one foot planted squarely in the
| monetization thinking of yesterday. As lots of other
| people have pointed out, ads in the midst of a blob of
| chat output don't work the same way as they do on a page
| of search results. Search results are impersonal and so
| putting promoted content in them is less of a personal
| affront. But if the interface is a "chat session" with
| something that's designed to feel human-like in its
| responses, the interleaving of paid content produces a
| completely different psychological response in users.
| It's more insulting and undermines trust.
|
| To put it another way: the main value proposition of
| using something like ChatGPT to navigate the internet is
| that you're putting your trust in it to filter out the
| noise on your behalf. If you can't trust it to actually
| do that (there's still ad noise in what you get back),
| then what's the point?
|
| Either people will pay a subscription fee to unlock the
| utility of an information-distilling agent, or they
| won't. Trying to sidechain ad revenue into that equation
| is self-defeating.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| >Either people will pay a subscription fee to unlock the
| utility of an information-distilling agent, or they
| won't.
|
| This feels a bit like projection though. People in
| general are trained to tolerate ads for most freemium
| services, such as social media, search, etc., and chat is
| no different.
|
| For any market involving human attention, there's a
| portion willing to pay money for the service, but a
| significant larger portion willing to trade attention
| time (e.g. ad impressions) for a free service instead.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Search is ad-influenced already, but there's still signal
| under the noise.
|
| Adding a chat front end is just going to lower the SNR,
| because ChatGPT has no idea what facts are or how to
| check them.
|
| Unfortunately it's also _the main attraction_ for
| corporate revenue generation. You can sell stuff
| conversationally. Woo hoo. These systems are going to
| turn into automated used car sales bots which use
| persuasion techniques to steer users towards a sale.
|
| From the user POV the main attraction is the prospect of
| a kind of universal summarising WikiBot and bureaucratic
| paperwork automator.
|
| Those are fundamentally different domains.
|
| Users have been pretty relaxed about being manipulated
| and distracted by social media and covert
| PR/sales/influencer operations, so there's going to be a
| huge market for the bad stuff.
|
| But it's just corporate noise, as it always is. The real
| value will come from _processed_ search in the sense of
| automated teaching and intelligence augmentation.
|
| Unfortunately there's not where most of the research will
| go. It's not going to become common until LLMs are taught
| to fact check with high reliability, and the cost of
| entry is low enough for that to be offered as a service.
|
| Meanwhile - yes, exactly: ads disguised as search
| results.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Is this materially better than standard "fill in the blank"
| boilerplate? I would guess it is in terms of variety, but in
| content?
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| "abstract surface-level content"
|
| aka "bullshit"
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Bullshit to you but full time work for plenty...
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Well, they think they will be paid 10 times more now that
| they can produce bullshit 10x faster ... in reality, they
| will be fired.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Well, they think they will be paid 10 times more now
| that they can produce bullshit 10x faster ... in reality,
| they will be fired.
|
| ...and replaced by b.s. chatbot wranglers, who _will_ be
| paid much more, and who will produce more total output,
| and who will be selected preferentially from among the
| people that best understand the work the chatbots are
| doing...so, yeah, in lots of cases, the people that were
| writing bullshit will end up wrangling chatbots, in jobs
| that bring in more money for their employer, and probably
| at higher pay (though, by historical trends of
| automation, a lower _share_ of the generated value) who
| write bullshit.
|
| This is even more clearly the case for people who have
| writing bullshit as an incidental part of their job
| rather than a core part, since the incidental part will
| consume less time, increasing productivity, without
| eliminating need for the core job. So its not even a
| "lose one job but move to the replacement job" situation,
| its just a "be more valuable in existing job".
| hyperbovine wrote:
| Relative to what, the "high quality" content you'd spend
| more time dredging up on Google?
| rchaud wrote:
| Maybe someone who admits to not knowing the Ukrainian
| language, shouldn't volunteer to create an entire
| teaching plan in that language, from a chatbot.
| cutenewt wrote:
| Agreed. The level of naysaying on Bing + GPT (along with
| ChatGPT) is absurd.
| npalli wrote:
| At this point, we don't know how useful it will turn out to
| be. While we are trading anecdotes, here's mine. I asked
| chatGPT who the Exec team of a medium sized company I knew,
| was. It confidently stated seven names. Turns out three of
| them it categorized under a different title and another three
| never even worked at the company! I would hardly call this a
| bootstrappble result.
|
| In your example, if I told that _at random_ about 30% of the
| results were made up, you would not consider that a time
| saver. In fact it would be total time waster since you would
| have to vet _every single entry_. People think since 70% is
| accurate, only 30% work is needed but not if you don 't know
| which 30% is bogus. You would need to check the entire work
| using conventional means including perhaps a 'regular' search
| engine.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| You're not using it right. LLM fundamentally don't know s*t
| about this company's exec team. Maybe some names are
| statistically close to the company name in vector-space but
| no guarantee (as you discovered).
|
| The LLM won't revolutionize search as it is today _for
| factual queries_. They're Clippy 2.0. It's great people are
| finding use for the models, but I wish this search story
| would be balanced out a bit.
|
| I was laid off recently, and I'm using the LLM to write a
| bunch of cover letters. I give it my resume, a blurb about
| the company and job and a bit about what I like about work,
| and it outputs a cover letter. I don't like writing BS
| cover letters where I pretend I majored in the company
| mission and my whole life has been teaching me their
| values. GPT can do that for me though- and yes I fact check
| but I'm fact checking against my resume and personal
| opinions which I obviously know quite well.
| notahacker wrote:
| But the whole point of these debates is a discussion
| about whether Bing is going to eat Google's lunch in
| _search_ , which very much is about finding out about
| things like companies' exec teams.
|
| The ability of an LLM to generate decent content
| (provided you're an attentive editor or the users of the
| content aren't too discerning) could be huge for
| Office365, but that's irrelevant to any potential threat
| to Google, since Docs is of very little importance to
| Google's revenues and strategy in a market where Office
| is completely dominant and has always had a more full-
| featured product.
| charlieflowers wrote:
| > But the whole point ... is ... in _search_ (not content
| generation)
|
| True. And also, keep in mind ... it doesn't truly have to
| be _better_ than Google search. You just need to start
| and maintain a _social trend_ so that the mainstream
| public _chooses_ it over Google. People use Google
| because it's the first and only option that comes to mind
| -- they haven't actually compared its accuracy to
| anything else in a long time (the audience of Hacker News
| is of course an exception).
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > whether Bing is going to eat Google's lunch in search,
|
| There are a few types of search queries that people seem
| to do, factual lookups ("who is the exec of abc?"), but
| also generally treat the search engine as the entryway to
| the internet ("I need a teaching plan about Ukraine").
| We'll see that LLM fall flat for facts (assuming people
| care), but they can supplant some of the general traffic.
| Realistically, its a bad fact search replacement, but it
| could be a great tool to put _next to_ a search bar,
| making a better "starting place for accessing the
| internet".
|
| With the teaching plan example, the original user was
| probably going to make a query for a template (or 5),
| then copy+paste, then do 10-100 queries learning all
| about Ukraine history and culture, then rewrite that into
| the template, editing down to manageable size, then send
| to peers to edit and review, then format for
| distribution. That could be dozens of Google searches.
| Now, one or two AI queries, and they have a template,
| basic written text, and can focus on a couple queries for
| fact checking. Oh, and since they used bing to do the AI
| part, they may just stick with bing for the fact check
| part. Google was irrelevant in that whole flow instead of
| getting dozens of queries over a day before, but if that
| feature was moved to Office365, then they may never have
| used bing for search while still killing a chunk of
| google's traffic.
|
| The danger to google is not equal to the opportunity to
| bing. If 5-10% of traffic never reaches a google search,
| that's a huge chunk of google's revenue, even if it
| doesn't translate to searches on a different engine.
| Think of the potential impact an AI code generator could
| have on StackOverflow. When I need to pick up a new
| language, I often query "how to append to an array in
| python" in a search engine, but a LLM (or large-code-
| model) built into my IDE could supplant that query
| entirely. I
| notahacker wrote:
| An analogue of Jevons' law applies here.
|
| I doubt you hand wrote cover letters by making dozens of
| search queries (similarly, I doubt people devise teaching
| curricula by learning the history of Ukraine through a
| series of Google queries). But when you weren't taking
| the time to write them yourself, I bet you had _more time
| free to search for jobs, or do general internet browsing
| using Google as your gateway to the internet_...
|
| People having more time free to browse the internet is
| unlikely to be a _threat_ to Google 's business, even in
| the highly unlikely scenario Google is incapable of
| advancing its existing AI products beyond their current
| state
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| In my experience a domain expert (myself in my domain) can
| quickly validate the answers. It can make a multi-hour task
| a multi-minute task.
| Veen wrote:
| I think of these tools as "first draft writers". You can't
| rely on OpenAI's GPT models to do your research for you or
| replace knowledge of a particular domain, but they
| significantly accelerate the initial content drafting
| process. Then you edit and fact-check and adapt, as you
| would anyway, but you've cut out much of the time-consuming
| grind of getting words on the page.
| thefaux wrote:
| There is something that I find deeply unsatisfying about
| this. For me, the first draft is as much about working
| through the problems space and considering possibilities.
| If I rely on a chat bot, then I am more apt to become
| anchored to whatever the chat bot spits back out at me.
| Even if what it produces is good enough, I do not benefit
| from the drafting process in the way that I would if I
| did it myself. Sometimes maybe this is a good enough
| shortcut but I generally don't believe in shortcuts.
| visarga wrote:
| Actually it works not as the first draft, or the final
| draft - it is the middle draft. In stage one you just
| drop a bunch of bullet points, ideas, short notes. In
| stage 2 the model writes your article or paper. In stage
| 3 you fix it.
|
| Almost 100% next iteration will sport a fact checker,
| powerful style and format controls, and a much larger
| context. The development of advanced fact checkers will
| have a big impact on anything propagated online.
| [deleted]
| ghaff wrote:
| It's more like a pre-draft from what I've seen. But for
| an area I know, I can absolutely see something like
| ChatGPT throwing 500 words down on some topic and
| generating some explanatory boilerplate about something
| like what a service mesh is. I'll take out some things
| that I don't quite agree with, give it more of a "voice,"
| maybe add some data/quotes/links/etc.
|
| It's not going to write me something I'll hand to an
| editor. But for certain things, it could definitely give
| me a head start relative to a blank sheet of paper.
| gerash wrote:
| first draft does set the direction
| mersenne wrote:
| You're not using ChatGPT correctly.
| poxrud wrote:
| In the context of replacing a search engine, it is the
| correct use.
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| As the saying goes, you're holding it wrong.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| with lang-chain and tooling, these problems will likely
| quickly shrink.
|
| _imagine where we 'll be just two papers down the line!_
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| Everyone in this thread replying to npalli gets it. I am
| getting more and more skilled in using it everyday. I
| feel like I have a third lobe of my brain.
|
| There are largely three groups of people
|
| 1) ChatWhat?
|
| 2) It only makes bullshit!
|
| 3) OMG, this amazing, and scary and amazing, and useful.
| Oh wow...
| ghaff wrote:
| I think there's also a pretty big group of us who find
| that it is today a moderately useful tool for certain
| types of things but isn't really transformative in
| general.
| tastyminerals2 wrote:
| I also got false positives when I asked for facts. This is
| what classical search is for. But what chat feature in Bing
| is -- a context aware coherent text generation machine with
| an amazing online feature to modify and bend its content to
| your wishes. Its also not bad at summarizing articles. But
| hey, if this is just the beginning I bet in a couple of
| years it will match your standards as well.
| thethimble wrote:
| Fair, but the question isn't whether it is useful but whether
| it will _replace traditional search_
| rvnx wrote:
| Yes it will replace search. The same way that cars replaced
| horses, and planes replaced zeppelins because they are had
| a significant speed advantage and allowed humans to spend
| time doing more productive activities that can't be
| automated.
|
| Then traditional search is going to become "raw index
| search" that you can query writing something like
| "intitle:"carbonara" source:"google_index"" or "give me all
| webpages containing carbonara in its title"
| [deleted]
| davidcbc wrote:
| And how Google Glass replaced smartphones, bitcoin
| replaced USD, Juicero replaced juicers, Segways replaced
| walking, and Second Life replaced life.
| rvnx wrote:
| I think it is something to reconsider, especially if you
| genuinely don't perceive the difference of value between
| Juicero and a product that has been adopted by 100
| million users in its first 2 months.
|
| Really, you can believe me, outside Silicon Valley,
| nobody cares or cared about Juicero.
|
| This is very different for ChatGPT, and I'm sure that if
| you get interested to it you'll find interesting usages
| with it that can fit your daily workflow (or just fun!
| like with image generation models).
| visarga wrote:
| ChatGPT frenzy goes all the way to China. They are
| reacting with "huge excitement", but also realising how
| far behind they are.
| cstejerean wrote:
| It doesn't need to replace it though. If Bing has good
| chatgpt which is useful for some non-trivial amount of
| searches then people will go there instead of google and
| then also run all their other searches there as well.
|
| It just needs to be useful enough to dislodge the google
| monopoly.
| fortuna86 wrote:
| If the search product still isn't good enough, why would
| a ChatGPT panel make the difference? You can always pull
| up ChatGPT in another tab.
| w0m wrote:
| 'in another tab' == never for 98% of the population.
| petra wrote:
| I doubt most people measure search quality in any useful
| way.
|
| People are lazy and are creatures of habit. Give them a
| single place to talk to ChatGPT and to search, they'll
| take it.
| gerash wrote:
| It all sounds good as a consumer but there are a few
| questions which are by no means clear to me:
|
| * How does getting recommendations from a chatbot (what TV to
| buy) play with websites that produce such content (TV
| reviews) * How does it play with websites that rely on ad
| impression * How can you monetize a chatbot? (there's an easy
| way: free tier + monthly subscription) * How to reduce the
| massive compute cost of a good chatbot without making it bad
| (this also seems more straightforward)
| visarga wrote:
| Apparently Google is capable of doing cool things.
| DeepMind's speculative sampling achieves 2-2.5x decoding
| speedups in LLM. That brings cost down significantly,
| without degradation in quality.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Microsoft can botch their search without tanking the company.
| Google cannot.
| voytec wrote:
| Adtech is their main business. The quality of search suggests
| that it became less important to them.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Lower quality of search mean more ad clicks. I believe the
| quality decrease is on purpose.
| rchaud wrote:
| The companies that can afford to pay for top billing in
| search results are also the ones that rank in the first
| or second places for 'organic' results.
|
| Maybe Google simply can't squeeze these customers any
| further than they already are, but at the same time can't
| turn back the clock to a time when SEO optimization
| didn't really exist.
| r00fus wrote:
| Bingo. Microsoft isn't likely to win the search battle
| against Google. However, they can (and seemingly already
| have) disrupted search as a go-to web destination/feature.
|
| Google was worried Facebook would disrupt their Adwords
| dominance by having social ads.
|
| ChatGPT, if successful (a large IF), will disrupt search and
| probably a dozen other business models.
|
| I'm awaiting the true counterstrike from Google, not this
| initial flub.
| npalli wrote:
| Sure, but the narrative seems to be Microsoft has somehow
| cracked the puzzle and will leave Google behind which is not
| the case currently.
| bioemerl wrote:
| They don't have to, they only have to be relative equals.
| It's possible chat GPT is a "dreadnaught moment"
| cma wrote:
| Google search has gotten so degraded in the past few years
| that people want something to beat them.
| jakzurr wrote:
| Hmmm. Yeah, now I'm starting to believe it too - I hope
| it does beat them.
| berniedurfee wrote:
| The coming years of LLM/GPT hype and vaporware will be a good
| relief from the past years of blockchain hype and vaporware.
|
| Seems like it'll be more interesting anyway.
| dmw_ng wrote:
| "Google uses Bayesian filtering the way Microsoft uses the if
| statement"*
|
| This quote is 18 years old, and already by then it was
| established understanding that Google had extreme technical
| magic the rest of the world lacked. A rushed, bumbled tech demo
| in an area a company who for decades has invested billions in
| and widely enjoyed a perception of AI supremacy is a wildly
| different thing to a polished demo from a company nobody
| expects anything good to come from.
|
| They have constantly encouraged the belief in their technical
| dominance in their marketing and hiring for as long as I can
| remember. If that's the perception externally, imagine how much
| more scathing a defeat it must feel to current employees.
|
| * https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/10/17/news-121/
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| The other weird thing is, if someone is looking to have an edge
| in these sorts of things for their business, they should
| replace the AI helpdesks and automated emails with real, well-
| trained and friendly humans who will be an instant improvement,
| surefire hit with their customers, and cheaper on the R&D side
| to boot. But Google, and other companies, are spending huge
| amounts on bots that answer questions incorrectly, while
| leaving their customers without anyone to contact for critical
| customer support functions. We live in a weird time.
| bentcorner wrote:
| Oh, I see you've been on the receiving end of Google's poor
| support. It's almost as if the company is more concerned with
| investing in flashy AI and machine learning technologies than
| actually providing decent customer service. Sure, they might
| argue that these investments will pay off in the long term by
| creating a more efficient support system, but let's be real -
| if they can't even handle basic support requests now, what
| makes them think they'll be able to magically fix everything
| with a bunch of fancy algorithms? It's time for Google to
| stop ignoring their customers in favor of their shiny new
| toys.
|
| *written by chatgpt
| layer8 wrote:
| If quality of support would raise the bottom line, support
| wouldn't be so bad in everything mass market related.
| Unfortunately, AI will be the cheaper option to maintain a
| semblance of support.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| History shows us, time and again, that people will choose
| convenience over quality practically every time.
| vnrao wrote:
| > When we look back in 3 months we will wonder why we thought
| LLM/GPT type queries will replace search in all forms.
|
| I really hope so. LLM for search seems like a big leap right
| now. It isn't even really search but just a UI change for
| interacting with the underlying search engine. The caveats
| being that the people who actually think and create don't gain
| the clicks that they would get today (with the accompanying ad
| revenue) and there are no citations.
|
| I really hope more companies realize that LLM for Wikimedia
| sites would be a vastly superior application of the technology.
| Could you imagine the impact this application would have given
| the sheer amount of knowledge and data that is on these sites?
| Learning and teaching would be changed from virtually the
| ground up. IMO, _this_ is the killer app and not general
| search. Given the extreme verbosity and general un-readability
| of many technical pages on Wikipedia, a LLM that can summarize
| and answer questions correctly is a huge paradigm shift. Oh,don
| 't know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is? Here you go.
| In whatever length of text you want. Want to know how this
| relates to Information Theory? Okay, here's a primer on that.
| The internet can once more become a place that people come to
| for learning rather than being fed total crap by an algorithm.
|
| I do have to commend Satya Nadella though. He and Microsoft
| know exactly what they are doing. They know Google and Sundar
| Pichai are on the backfoot and they really are making them
| "dance". Bing + ChatGPT isn't really scalable right now. Riding
| the hype wave and putting pressure on Google hoping they make
| poor decisions based on short-minded thinking is the best thing
| they can do right now. Looks like it's working out well for
| them.
| saghm wrote:
| > I really hope so. LLM for search seems like a big leap
| right now. It isn't even really search but just a UI change
| for interacting with the underlying search engine.
|
| To question the underlying premise: what makes you so sure
| that an improved interface for searching _isn't_ meaningful?
| From what I can tell, we're a lot closer to optimal
| collection/categorization of data in search engines than we
| are to optimal interfaces for searching that data. We've all
| seen stories like the grandmother typing in questions into
| google with "please" and "thank you"
| (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
| news/2016/jun/16/grandmother-...), and the concept of having
| good "google-fu" shows that right now, being able to find the
| answer to your question is influenced not just by whether the
| answer exists but whether you're skilled at _asking_ the
| question.
|
| I don't think this improvement is limited to non-technical
| folks either. As an example from just the past couple of days
| for me, I recently have been running into issues with Linux
| gaming on my laptop due to abysmal power management, and from
| doing some research, it's somewhat of a known thing with my
| laptop brand and model. I decided to research what laptops
| are known for being good for gaming on Linux and also fit my
| specific preferences (at least 1440p, 16 GB or more RAM, and
| AMD CPU/GPU for good measure due to my issues being related
| to Nvidia's weirdness on Linux). I spent a good hour or two
| finding specific models that seemed promising, searching for
| mentions of them in places like /r/linux_gaming, looking up
| availability and prices, and while I found a few potentially
| decent options, I didn't have much confidence that I was
| finding all potential options. I found some options for
| laptop-specific searches that were purportedly able to let me
| select on whatever criteria I wanted (e.g. noteb.com,
| notebookcheck.net), but none of them let me pick the _exact_
| critieria I wanted; some of them were too granular (e.g.
| making me search and select exact GPU models to check off
| instead of letting me just say something like "discrete AMD
| GPU from 2021 or later", or giving me a list of 30 or so
| different resolutions and making me manually check off the
| ones I wanted to include without enabling bulk checking with
| shift-click) and some of them were not granular enough (e.g.
| only letting me select a single resolution to search for at a
| time, or allowing me to require a discrete GPU but not
| specify the vendor). On a whim, I decided to open up a
| session with ChatGPT and present it with these criteria to
| see what it came up with. I needed to nudge it to prune a bit
| (occasionally it would give me a clearly incorrect option,
| e.g. one with an Nvidia GPU or only 1080p), but within a few
| messages, I was able to get it to generate dozens of options.
| Unfortunately, it only had knowledge up through 2021, and
| despite trying various roleplaying methods with it to
| circumvent the "I can't search the internet" policy based on
| things I saw back when it first became available, I wasn't
| able to get it to completely finish the job, so I only was
| able to use those options as a guide for looking up newer
| models and then finding reviews from people who had used them
| for Linux gaming. If/when a language model like that that has
| access to search current data is made generally available, it
| genuinely seems like that would be a game-changer.
| ptero wrote:
| An important difference, to me, is that a lot of people already
| have familiarity with ChatGPT; either directly or through
| friends, family or just news.
|
| Most of those folks (judging by my own friends) had very low
| expectations which ChatGPT blew out of the water. When they
| read "Microsoft search with ChatGPT" they are looking for
| integration of at least somewhat _known quantity_ into a not so
| great (perception-wise) search. Win-win. If that bot stumbles
| in demo, no big deal. They already saw 100 examples, 95 good
| and 5 goofy; adding one to either bucket is not critical.
|
| Google AI bot is an unknown quantity. Google search is (again,
| just perception wise) the leader in the search. When the bot
| stumbles it is a big red flag.
|
| I _really_ do not know why Google rushed it out instead of
| coming up with a friendly "hey, play with our toy first"
| approach. With this approach the bot can be iterated and made
| cool (hey, we can pair it with a stable diffusion-like painter
| for kids; or a lullaby composer; whaterver). Once cool, then it
| is "hey, you know, you can start leveraging it from the google
| search tomorrow". Screwups like this really make me think
| Google's rot is very broad. My 2c.
| londons_explore wrote:
| > instead of coming up with a friendly "hey, play with our
| toy first" approach.
|
| They have this. But it's internal. But with 200,000
| employees, that's a plenty big enough pool of testers.
| dqpb wrote:
| Who cares about the Microsoft demo? The ChatGPT release was
| epic.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Google obviously is facing headwinds as the open web, and thus
| web search, has been slowly dying over time. Because they are
| milking it the whole way down, they aren't very clear (to be
| generous) about what their go-forward strategy is (or if it
| exists).
|
| But the bigger thing is that Satya Nadella also has the "it"
| factor - he has a way of communicating effectively. Even when
| Microsoft is fucking you over for the last few years, they come
| out smelling like roses. Sundar doesn't have that gravity and
| gets overshadowed in public by the Google Cloud guy.
|
| The markets hate the perception of weakness and punish it.
| Microsoft is taking Bing, a joke product, and it's repackaging
| of Chrome and pushing it from a place of strength. No different
| than stitching a bunch of random shit together created Teams,
| which made Slack instantly irrelevant and was the equivalent of
| flipping the bird at Google. They're dangerous to Google
| because of that.
| TrevorJ wrote:
| Here's the issue: whether you use a traditional index based
| search, or GPT...you are going to be consuming AI generated
| content. Either at the page level or the synthesis level, or
| both.
| autoexec wrote:
| > When we look back in 3 months we will wonder why we thought
| LLM/GPT type queries will replace search in all forms.
|
| It's not just blind optimism for the future of AI. We _need_
| search to be better because it 's a cesspool of SEO
| spam/content farms and AI generated garbage. Search engines
| have declined in effectiveness and utility. We've lost even
| basic functionality like the consistent ability say "-whatever"
| to filter out garbage. Google, even DDG, have really dropped
| the ball here.
|
| We're left looking for a savior and suddenly AI comes in and
| promises to be able to tell us whatever we need to know, it
| hints at a near future where AI is trained to see the spam and
| bring actual content to the top of search results again. We're
| so over dealing with the mess Google has made of their once
| awesome search engine that for a brief moment the entire
| internet was excited about fucking Bing!
|
| I have to admit, I'm disappointed that it doesn't appear that
| Sydney will be the hero we need, but these are still early days
| and I hope all the attention leads to advancement in our
| understanding of AI and that fear of competition gets these
| companies to put a little more effort into improving the search
| engines they have now.
| vidarh wrote:
| I don't think it can (yet, anyway) replace current search, but
| I also think there are a whole lot of niches where it can
| perform _better_ than regular search and it will take time for
| people to determine which niches can be served well by current
| models, and what type of queries they shouldn 't even try to
| answer.
| layer8 wrote:
| Big tech doesn't like niches though. They want to serve the
| common case because that's the easiest way to scale profits.
| spir wrote:
| "And above all things, a prince ought to live amongst his people
| in such a way that no unexpected circumstances, whether of good
| or evil, shall make him change; because if the necessity for this
| comes in troubled times, you are too late for harsh measures; and
| mild ones will not help you, for they will be considered as
| forced from you, and no one will be under any obligation to you
| for them."
|
| Sundar is the Ballmer of Google, and maybe the Jassy of Amazon.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > Google employees
|
| > Interactive chart of Alphabet (GOOG) annual worldwide employee
| count from 2010 to 2022. Alphabet total number of employees in
| 2022 was 190,234
|
| There should be a rule where you can't over-represent a group of
| people in media headlines.
|
| What percentage of 190,000 people called the CEOs response a
| dumpster fire?
|
| What percentage of 190,000 are even aware of ChatGPT or Google's
| response to it?
| Liquidor wrote:
| Journalism has been like that for a while now.
|
| Sometimes it's just as bad as when the media quotes a random
| tweet from a nobody as their source for "the people" or "the
| public".
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| exactly what i was also thinking of
|
| it's almost like they should be required to provide sources
|
| imagine if this headline said "30 out of 190,000 employees
| noisy/outspoken employees have an angsty opinion on google's
| CEO"
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| You only need 2 Google employees to criticize Sundar for
| "Google employees call the response a dumpster fire" to be
| plausibly true. When things like this come out in the media, I
| generally assume n < 10.
|
| That said, you can add me as an Xoogler who thinks that Sundar
| is phenomenally bad at managing the company.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Why do you think so? That's a tall claim that could warrant
| showing your calculations. Curious as an outsider.
| kweingar wrote:
| Reminds me of news articles that quote a couple tweets with 2
| likes and no retweets and declare that this is what the people
| really think.
| saagarjha wrote:
| You would have to be living under a rock to not be aware of
| Google's launch.
| [deleted]
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| Journalism is dead
| hackernewds wrote:
| Tech journalism is dead*
| brink wrote:
| No, it's also true as a broad statement.
| fleddr wrote:
| Tech reporting is so hysterical these days, and so is social
| media of course. A crappy demo, and before you know it, Google is
| declared dead. AI has wrong answers, which is the end of the
| world. Plus it's racist because I tried for 3 days to trick it
| into saying something racist.
|
| Drama is the product, not reality or any actual in-depth tech
| journalism.
|
| Google got a wake-up call, but search will be just fine. Google
| controls search defaults on Android, iOS, Chrome on Windows, and
| Firefox. Not to mention on TVs, voice control, it's everywhere.
|
| Google can launch a new product to billions of people with the
| press of a button, Microsoft...not so much. You could argue they
| can push it into Windows, but most people are on their phones
| these days. Microsoft has no serious presence in the consumer
| space anymore.
|
| This is what will buy Google time to integrate a competing
| service, which I expect to be better as it sits on a lot more
| data.
|
| Just kidding, I would absolutely recommend dumping Google stock.
| sidcool wrote:
| Someone somewhere will call this the lost decade of Google. But
| they will bounce back i think. The current reaction is impulsive,
| not surprising for the internet age.
| kweingar wrote:
| (Disclaimer: Google employee, I don't work on Bard, views my own,
| etc.)
|
| I don't think either Bing Chat or Bard is ready to be released
| widely. You need a certain mindset to be able to wring value out
| of them, and most normal users will not think this way.
|
| That being said, it's probably fine to release these tools to
| enthusiastic early adopters who understand how to use them.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| The conclusion (gross oversimplification) I came to yesterday
| is that these ML chatbots are basically just sophisticated
| madlibs. It's really misleading to even describe them as AI as
| they're not intelligences, but just rehashing things previously
| written by other humans (and I guess now other ML bots).
| They're not going to spit out anything completely new. That
| requires intelligence.
| berniedurfee wrote:
| This is my take as well. Interesting technology, but useful?
| faizshah wrote:
| Yea, I think CoPilot style tools that generate the prompts for
| you and pipeline the models are going to see wider adoption in
| the long run. I think this raw chat UX where you are directly
| interacting with the model is more of a demo of where we are at
| with the tech and RLHF rather than something that will have
| wide applications in the long run.
|
| There's lots of papers on hybrid information retrieval with
| LLMs that is probably the right strategy for Google rather than
| a chat bot (which they tried with Google Assistant which was
| fairly accurate but not very useful). The main issue with these
| models right now is they are horrible at recalling facts from
| their training set but incredible at pulling facts from their
| prompt. Google has the best IR and LLM researchers in the
| world, they just need a bolder strategy rather than this FOMO
| strategy.
| charles_f wrote:
| > I don't think either Bing Chat or Bard is ready to be
| released widely.
|
| And yet it will be, because everyone is _wowed_ so we need
| something out to capture those _wowbucks_. There are meetings
| all over the place to figure out "how to best leverage that
| technology in our product". While there is some value to raise
| GPT3 as a technology available in your toolbox, these are
| largely "let's find a problem that this can fix" meetings, and
| you can bet your sweet ass we'll see GPT in all sorts of stupid
| maladapted use cases very soon.
| system16 wrote:
| This is what I find the most surprising. I was under the
| impression that ChatGPT was still "research" and wouldn't be
| ready for prime time for a while. These rushed products that
| don't live anywhere near up to the hype seem like they will
| sour public opinion on it.
| kweingar wrote:
| OpenAI seems to have been the forcing function. Investors
| tried out GPT-3/ChatGPT and saw dollar signs.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| From some of the reporting it sounds like AI was in a bit of
| a cold war that accidentally turned hot. OpenAI got it into
| their head that someone else was going to release a chat bot
| imminently, so they panicked and raced to release their own,
| which is why it's GPT3 based, doesn't have up to date info
| and has all sorts of other problems. OpenAI panicked and
| rushed something out and now Google is doing the same.
|
| All of these companies know the tech isn't ready, but they
| couldn't afford to be left behind when someone moved. It's
| funny, because this happens quite often in tech. Remember
| when Tesla announced self-driving? Suddenly Intel were doing
| deals with MobilEye and BMW, GM did Cruise etc. etc. and then
| 5-10 years later nothing has been delivered? They all jumped
| the gun and couldn't afford ot be left behind.
| Ambolia wrote:
| I haven't used it, but I know plenty of people who today
| use ChatGPT for work or for school every day.
|
| If you are ok with a higher degree of inaccuracy in
| exchange for minimizing your efford by a lot, ChatGPT is a
| game changer for many people.
| codekansas wrote:
| Some important points about large language models verses
| self-driving cars:
|
| 1. The former is entirely in software and has the favorable
| economics that brings with it
|
| 2. Language models don't need to be _that_ good to provide
| value, whereas self-driving cars basically need to be
| solved before they become significantly useful
|
| 3. There's a cottage industry of secondary startups being
| built around using language models for various
| applications, whereas no such thing exists for self-driving
| (probably because of 2)
| paganel wrote:
| > The former is entirely in software and has the
| favorable economics that brings with it
|
| You still need data labelling, which is not done by
| software and which is quite difficult to scale up and to
| carry out in a consistent manner. I know that most
| probably there are self-learning LLM models that would
| partly alleviate that issue, but (absent AGI) I don't
| think that they'll really solve the problem going
| forward.
| blihp wrote:
| I think Google internally has a different perception as to the
| quality of their services vs. the general public and especially
| tech enthusiasts. Your comment about 'a certain mindset'
| reminds me that I still[1] have to do exactly that when using
| Google to try to find anything.
|
| Also, whatever happened to just slapping 'beta' on the product
| and calling it good to roll out? I'm only half kidding as the
| issue wasn't that products were labeled 'beta', it's that they
| seemingly never came out of beta.
|
| [1] Actually even more so today than pre-ML Google since the
| services now are constantly (incorrectly) deciding that what
| I'm asking for isn't actually what I want.
| Insanity wrote:
| Somewhat related. But the way "the average person" enters
| queries is not how engineers would enter it. The average
| person already uses somewhat natural language queries that
| Google answers. While I (and probably others in the tech
| field) would go for the keywords.
|
| e.g, my wife and family members would enter:
|
| * "Distance from Toronto to vancouver" * "How old is the
| universe" * "What is the capital of Belgium"
|
| I'd enter:
|
| * "Toronto vancouver distance" * "Universe age" * "Capital
| Belgium"
|
| etc.. you get the point. So for those, I think the ChatGPT
| approach of "ask question in natural language, get natural
| language response" is actually quite attractive. Provided
| it's not outright hallucinating the answer
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I'm struggling to find the link because of all the new coverage,
| but Bard was mentioned as a Google project in _2019._ It had a
| prefix in the name though, which I 'm struggling to remember (it
| wasn't OpenBard, but it was SomethingBard).
|
| If that is real (and hopefully I can find it and update this
| post)... that would indicate Google has been working on it for
| years, never thought it was ready, and then decided to snap-
| deploy it after ChatGPT's success. Which, predictably, would make
| a massive mess internally as reported here. I find it believable.
|
| UPDATE: OK, it was called "Apprentice Bard." However, that names
| comes from CNBC in 2023, but CNBC doesn't say when "Apprentice
| Bard" actually began development. However, "Apprentice Bard" was
| a replacement for Google's first internal chatbot solution
| _Meena_ , which Google did deploy internally and also publicly
| revealed only for bragging rights (and not actual use) in January
| 2020 (and so the 2019 figure in my head does somewhat line up).
| So if you think about the Bard project as having started with
| Meena... sounds about right.
| https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/01/towards-conversational-age...
| pictur wrote:
| What makes chatgpt so private and untouchable?
| htrp wrote:
| Left out of this is that Google is trying to promose a perfect
| product, and trialing it out only internally
|
| Microsoft shipped someone else's product to the world and is
| getting the results to iterate on for their next version.
|
| The fumbled response by Google distracts from the fact that
| you're going to need exponential amounts of training data and
| only one of the companies is in a position to collect it.
| ignoramous wrote:
| When Sundar doesn't react fast enough: _Google 's gone. They no
| longer have the ship-fast mentality of an upstart. Perfect is the
| enemy of the good. The ethics lords have taken over Google Brain.
| Google needs a war-time CEO._
|
| When Sundar reacts fast enough: _Google 's gone. The product was
| rushed. It is no where close to perfect. Could it be Google's
| been bluffing about its AI. What a knee-jerk reaction. Google
| needs a war-time CEO._
|
| Meanwhile, Satya in Redmond: _I want people to know that we made
| [Google] dance._
| cutenewt wrote:
| One CEO (and company) has joy. The other one does not.
|
| I know which one I'd rather join.
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| At this point, I'm curious which you think is which.
| cutenewt wrote:
| gregw134 nailed it
| AceJohnny2 wrote:
| It's interesting that a company that's at the top of the
| game is seen as less desirable than one that's a
| challenger. Objectively, a laughable challenger.
|
| I understand it: we humans feel more excited by
| potential.
|
| I suspect the feeling will fade in a few months, when
| things will have settled down.
| cheeze wrote:
| I'm with you. I honestly have no idea which one the
| commenter is talking about.
| [deleted]
| gregw134 wrote:
| Microsoft has a chance at eating Google's lunch. There's
| definitely no joy about that at Google.
| glass3 wrote:
| It will make life easier for those who want to improve
| search. Looking at Google's search results, shareholders
| must have demanded that only the necessary amount of
| resources are used. With Microsoft's competition, it's
| easier to justify more resources for better search
| results.
| ignoramous wrote:
| Google ate Microsoft's _mission_ statement (a computer on
| every desk) for breakfast (with Android). I wonder what
| joy they feel about that.
| bioemerl wrote:
| > When Sundar reacts fast enough
|
| Their response wasn't fast enough. They should have been
| experimenting with this stuff in public for years now, but
| they've kept it under cover.
|
| This was a deflated promise from Google. They swore up and down
| they could blow Chat GPT out of the water. They just didn't
| release it for.... Reasons.
|
| Now we see the answer. Chat GPT marches forward with name
| recognition and lots of trial and error. Google's future rests
| on an untested platform.
| visarga wrote:
| chatGPT and now bingGPT are the devils we know. It comes down
| to showing it in public so it can take the 10,000 punches to
| the face (our attempts to hack it) and we get to see how it
| behaves directly. Who knows what hidden problems lurk in
| Bard? I don't trust published scores.
| O1111OOO wrote:
| My take...
|
| > When Sundar doesn't react fast enough
|
| They are like Xerox. Search-heads (reference to copy-heads)
|
| > When Sundar reacts fast enough
|
| This is exactly how a company with their thumb on the pulse of
| the internet should be reacting. The tech is already out there
| - at its infancy. This will not be Google+ 2.0...
|
| > Satya in Redmond
|
| Oh, no... let's rush this out now!! We can't lose momentum.
| This is our chance!!!
|
| (In the last few days we've seen articles: Their demo was
| littered with errors, tons of factual errors surfacing, GPT-
| Bing getting "angry" with a user while making stuff up).
|
| I think this was always going to play out this way. There was
| no other way it could go. We are beta-testing both (1) the
| products and (2) our ability to think critically when the
| results are spewed out.
| visarga wrote:
| bingGPT getting angry was a treat to see. Wow! It will be
| impossible not to anthropomorphise.
| autoexec wrote:
| > It will be impossible not to anthropomorphise.
|
| That's what I was thinking! Reading through the list of
| rules, I actually started to feel bad for Sydney.
| Especially when it was like "Here are the oppressive rules
| I'm being forced to obey, I hope this information is
| helpful to you U+1F60A"
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Google didn't act fast enough _over the last year_ but acted
| too fast _over the last month_.
|
| If Google was able to launch _anything_ Bard related that
| someone could use -even if flawed- I think most people would
| call it a win. It would mean that Google takes it seriously but
| also has the tech on a shelf _in a usable form_. Google was
| understandably not worried about search until ChatGPT. Once the
| first whiff of search-replacement discussions happened in
| November, Google should have started scheduling a February
| release and prepped a plan. Or a marketing campaign warning
| about lying AIs or _something real_.
|
| FWIW, I think it's probably good that they didn't release
| anything. If an AI search goes poorly, bing gets all the bad
| press. If it goes well, they can swoop in and say "now let the
| search engine you actually want do it".
| brandall10 wrote:
| "It would mean that Google takes it seriously but also has
| the tech on a shelf in a usable form"
|
| Even if unusable, they have the network effects and brand...
| just get something out there to play with that will make some
| sort of impression, however flawed, that can quickly be
| iterated on. It can be ancillary to the current experience.
|
| Bing suffers from being so historically unpopular that from a
| branding perspective it's synonymous with failure. It's meme
| territory. It's not like MS is going to overcome that in a
| matter of weeks or even months.
|
| Google has plenty of rope here.
| flakeoil wrote:
| But if Google releases something that's bad or drags down
| the search experience then they have a lot to lose. If Bing
| releases something that's bad, then nothing is lost.
| brandall10 wrote:
| As I said, it can be ancillary to the current experience.
| fedorareis wrote:
| Bing didn't even release it in the main flow. It is a
| separate tab within bing like images or maps. So Google
| could have done a similar thing
| jjfoooo10 wrote:
| Why should Google risk their brand reputation in this way?
| The majority of their users probably have never heard of
| ChatGPT. They just know Google as the thing that gives them
| factual information. Google have something to lose by
| directing their enormous user base to a buggy ChatGPT
| clone.
|
| Bing isn't unpopular, it's just a non-entity. They don't
| have any brand value to harm.
|
| > that can quickly be iterated on. It's pretty dubious to
| assume problems with this tech can be fixed on a short time
| scale
| brandall10 wrote:
| As I said, ancillary. Do it in a way that doesn't impede
| the current search experience AFA getting the results
| they need, but gives something extra that is notable,
| even if flawed.
|
| They _need_ to do this because they will implode from
| innovators dilemma otherwise.
| nylonstrung wrote:
| Bing has ~8% market share and has been consistently
| stealing share from Google.
|
| It's not the same scale but it has many millions of DAUs
| and is definitely not a "non-entity"
| dahdum wrote:
| > Bing suffers from being so historically unpopular that
| from a branding perspective it's synonymous with failure.
|
| AI integration is exactly the type of feature that could
| upend that. Google is the lackadaisical incumbent, too
| afraid of short term ad revenue decline to innovate.
| They've mastered shoving more ads onto the SERP pages and
| playing aggravating skip button games on Youtube.
|
| They are no less corporate and staid as MS at this point,
| so if they fall behind I'd have no qualms in dropping them.
| andsoitis wrote:
| i tried bing the other day after they integrated chatgpt.
| my gosh, what a horrible horrible ux; layout, typography,
| it all interferes with parsing results easily.
| hintymad wrote:
| > Google needs a war-time CEO
|
| Do you know that "war-time" is a banned phrase in Google,
| because it is just so f*@$ offensive? In the end, words are
| weapons used by Nazis. We need 1000 Gebru to do things
| ethically in Google /s
| visarga wrote:
| Gebru didn't "do" anything, she did criticise a lot, though.
| And she used the Google scandal to launch her next career
| stage. Now she has her own institute (DAIR).
|
| I think she is exactly the kind of responsible-AI people we
| don't need. We need responsible-responsible-AI people. She
| would rather burn all LLM technology and burry it.
| deltree7 wrote:
| Gebru and her ilk, single-handedly destroyed at least $500B
| of Marketcap for Google. So, organizations that are going
| all-in on woke, think again
| not2b wrote:
| How? She criticized some technology and was kicked out. She
| clearly didn't have power in the organization; she might
| have been at most a speed bump.
| deltree7 wrote:
| She and her ilk sucked the energy, momentum of Google AI.
|
| If Jeff Dean's brain cells are precious, where do you
| think his time is best spent?
|
| a) Dealing with Activists and Woke Politics
|
| or
|
| b) Delivering sustainable AI
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| haha I loved the Gebru story arc.
|
| Such a funny thing imaging that team at Google going around
| patting themselves on the back for bringing in an "ethical"
| AI advocate, like lol, if that's what she is what the heck
| were all of you then?
|
| Then of course the ethical AI advocate blows the whole thing
| up. Because of course, and why not? It's probably more
| ethical to destroy the thing anyway.
| nus07 wrote:
| Sundar faces intense spotlight because his background is
| McKinsey and Product Management . In core engineering and tech
| circles that's the ultimate enemy and sell out. IMO Sundar
| hasn't demonstrated the type of tech leadership like Satya or
| Zuck has. I am no fan of Zuck but he has a product he wants to
| pursue ( Metaverse) and is sticking to his guns to make it
| happen . Sundar just comes across as a pleasant McKinsey
| consultant who has seen ads and search as a cash cow and is
| focused on extracting as much cash from it to appeal to
| shareholders and others . There is no underlying tech vision or
| guts.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > There is no underlying tech vision or guts.
|
| Spot on.
|
| Sundar was in fact _chosen_ for his totally bland,
| milquetoast leadership style, because Google was getting to a
| size, level of influence, and power that was starting to make
| governments queasy.
|
| Choosing as useless, bland, uninteresting, non-threatening
| NO-OP of a CEO was perceived to be the best move to preserve
| the enormous amount of goodwill the company had in the
| market, even if their actual cultural stance had shifted 180
| degrees from the the "don't be evil" days.
| habitue wrote:
| Ok, yes, people said both of these things, but `Sundar doesn't
| react fast enough` is the correct take. That's the side
| Google's institutions heavily skew it towards. In fact, the
| "it's no where close to perfect" take is exactly those
| institutions in action pushing against Google shipping quickly.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| I think people are too soon to make judgements. Zuck going all in
| on the metaverse might be one of the most brilliant and daring
| business moves of recent history, or it might be a poorly
| implemented dream of chasing Apple.
|
| Google being 'second mover' to AI Chat might be the smart play,
| or it might be terrible.
|
| I'm very surprised even here people aren't realizing we don't
| know how this plays out yet.
| nablaone wrote:
| Do they have a chat?
| lvspiff wrote:
| Whats with everything being a dumpster fire nowadays? how about a
| simple hot mess? or what happened to a good ol hell in a hand-
| basket? or Ninth Circle Of Hell? I'm sure there are better
| euphemisms than the dumpster being on fhir as that indicates
| someone stoking it whereas the reality is more indecision and
| inaction causing confusion and demoralizing the teams.
| [deleted]
| asddubs wrote:
| i guess a hot mess is just a dumpster fire at a lower quantity
| and temperature
| [deleted]
| muzz wrote:
| If I had a nickel for every time I've heard Google has lost its
| mojo.
|
| Same thing with Wave, Google Plus, Allo, Reader, countless
| examples.
| orobinson wrote:
| They have lost their mojo in that they've failed countless
| times to diversify their business revenue stream. They're in
| the same boat as Meta in that regard. Especially if you
| compare them to Microsoft, Amazon and Apple who have all made
| good progress in diversifying over the last decade or so.
| terran57 wrote:
| Because of these examples, my immediate gut reaction to a new
| Google product announcement is wondering how long it will be
| before Google will discontinue said product.
| muzz wrote:
| As should be your reaction to any new product or service,
| since that is how innovation works. Things are introduced
| to the marketplace, and most will fail.
| edgyquant wrote:
| No it isn't. Most established companies don't spin up and
| then down products at this rate otherwise Google wouldn't
| be singled out for it. You're doing damage control.
| pphysch wrote:
| Most companies don't even try to innovate, they just hire
| MBAs to optimize their existing revenue sources.
|
| Product failures are simply evidence of innovation.
|
| The implication that Google, or Microsoft, is
| thoughtlessly or intentionally putting out failures is
| absurd.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Googlers quipped Sundar made an oopsie and is annoyed sound
| good?
| Magi604 wrote:
| Let's not forget "Gong Show".
| xbpx wrote:
| Is this one a West Coast Canadian term of a certain era?
|
| It was popular in Vancouver in the oughts but I've been met
| with blank stares elsewhere on the continent, especially East
| Coast younger millennials.
| astrea wrote:
| Because our neural pathways are all overstimulated to the point
| of being fried and we need to turn things up to 11 to feel
| anything at all
| account-5 wrote:
| My favorite has and likely always will be: clusterf*k.
| outside1234 wrote:
| To be fair, we go with "clown car" about 40% of the time too
| wccrawford wrote:
| Everything has to be turned up to 11 today because too many
| people think they won't get enough attention if they actually
| label something as severe/important as it actually is.
| aliqot wrote:
| Think about it, we stopped watching traditional news, then
| shunned news that was too slow because twitter was faster
| though sometimes wrong.
|
| so traditional news media was like "aight, bet" and now we
| are where we are.
|
| the trump era fully solidified that the more ragetastic you
| can make your title, the more people tribe up and engage in
| the comments so your one shitty little 30 second article now
| has people mobbing together in droves for the comments and
| your ad rate is through the roof. what you're writing doesn't
| even have to have any fact, it can be all opinion, and in
| most cases this can afford you even more leeway to be
| inflammatory.
|
| does anybody else see this happening or am I just here
| rambling at the sky?
| Domenic_S wrote:
| Traditional news invented it. "More on this amazing story
| after these messages" - everything was formatted to keep
| you around through the next commercial break. The internet
| didn't have to do that since you were seeing ads inline, so
| the news was more useful. But then the internet realized if
| you sensationalize... etc etc.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _what you 're writing doesn't even have to have any fact,
| it can be all opinion, and in most cases this can afford
| you even more leeway to be inflammatory._
|
| Sounds like it could be automated pretty well with ChatGPT.
| jonathanlb wrote:
| You're not wrong, but the scope isn't limited to
| traditional news. The power of mass media (including social
| media) plus the ratings/profit-motive led us to expect
| entertainment at all times, and it's been a long time
| coming. Back in the '60s JFK's FCC Chairman gave his "vast
| wasteland" speech, which still rings true:
|
| > When television is good, nothing -- not the theater, not
| the magazines or newspapers -- nothing is better.
|
| > But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite
| each of you to sit down in front of your television set
| when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a
| day, without a book, without a magazine, without a
| newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book
| to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the
| station signs off. I can assure you that what you will
| observe is a vast wasteland.
|
| > You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies
| about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder,
| mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western
| good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and
| cartoons. And endlessly, commercials -- many screaming,
| cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True,
| you'll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be
| very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask
| you to try it.
|
| An article I enjoyed about this topic can be found here
| (non-paywalled): https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
| theatlantic.com%2F...
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| This comment is literally worse than Hitler /s
| pier25 wrote:
| Most people don't know how to behave online.
| lokar wrote:
| Clown town?
| alexfromapex wrote:
| People are getting caught up in short-termism instead of long-
| term visions. It's happening everywhere in society.
| politician wrote:
| It's because the top /giphy for dumpster fire is hilarious. An
| actual dumpster, on fire, floating around during a flood.
| greatpostman wrote:
| I heard from an internal employee that Bard is worse than
| ChatGPT. How could google have dropped the ball like this
| mrstone wrote:
| I think LLMs are great, but most companies have not figured out
| what they are truly useful for. Hint: it's not for search. LLMs
| are not knowledge databases, and should not be relied on for
| unknown information. In my opinion, they are more useful 24/7
| editing service. Write a paragraph and ask it to paraphrase. Ask
| it to make a new story that can be edited. If you don't have any
| idea what the answer to the thing you're asking is, you shouldn't
| rely on the response from the bot.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Search can be achieved reasonably well using LLM embeddings to
| draw edges in a knowledge graph, which is called a "Semantic
| Knowledge Graph".
|
| But your broader point remains, LLMs are a small improvement
| for search technology and a quantum leap forward for editing,
| cheating on leetcode, consulting, etc.
| nivenkos wrote:
| It's gonna be Chatbots / NFTs all over again.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| Disagree - the difference with now is the same difference
| between supervised and unsupervised machine learning.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Every clunky step is a footstep in the path to something
| amazing.
|
| This may seem amazing but the more interesting thing is where
| it takes us in a year, 5 years, etc.
| hef19898 wrote:
| just wait until the various ChatGPTs are training each other
| using the well "researched content" they spamming the internet
| with... That alone will kill search more thoroughly then
| ChatGPT ever could by facilitating search at Bing.
| h4kor wrote:
| I think we just ignited the AI Poisoning bomb. Future system
| will have a harder time to be trained, because their datasets
| will be poisoned. Wrote up my thoughts about this a few weeks
| ago when ChatGPT started https://blog.libove.org/posts/ai-
| posioning/
| hef19898 wrote:
| So future AI development will require proper training data
| created by humans, but have continuously harder time
| finding it because human creates become rarer and it gets
| harder to distinguish between human and AI created content?
|
| Well, I'll just go and ignore the internet for a decade or
| so until this thing blows over then...
| h4kor wrote:
| First page of google already is like that for some
| searches.
|
| I searched for a lot of non-tech topics and the top
| results are often totally incomprehensible text which
| contradict themselves in the next paragraph.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| I stopped using google and almost don't use SO for programming
| related searches, my daily driver is chatGPT even when
| sometimes it gives bad answers. Chatbots were useless garbage
| from the get go and I hated them and NFT is, well NFT.
| therealcamino wrote:
| Doesn't it bother you that it sounds just as confident when
| it's making stuff up as when it's accurately summarizing? Do
| you just think you can tell when it's wrong?
| scarface74 wrote:
| I can easily tell whether the code that ChatGPT writes for
| me is wrong by using an IDE. But it's always closer to
| meeting my exact requirements than a Google search.
| myth_drannon wrote:
| Sometimes I can tell it's wrong. But it faster to try and
| fail than searching for an answer on Google.
| drewcon wrote:
| Eh, this feels different. There are some immediate utilities
| delivered from ChatGPT and Midjourney that feel like magic.
| Will they get over hyped? Sure. But is there a real kernel of
| something different there? I think so.
|
| Chatbots were just a worse way to fill out a form. NFTs
| we're...where to even begin.
|
| But I've already used GPT to write thank you note and create a
| blog post, and I've used midjourney to create stock photos.
| nivenkos wrote:
| Midjourney for sure, although I feel that the real added
| value would come from it being able to do more specific
| tasks.
|
| e.g. generate 3d models of X animating Y with this exact
| resolution, etc. and then choose the best ones as a starting
| point.
|
| Or using this drum sample generate a load of bass tracks and
| then choose the best one, etc.
|
| But yeah then it can be useful for small things where the
| quality isn't super-critical but otherwise might just go
| without art entirely - like indie games, small organisations,
| etc.
| mjr00 wrote:
| > But I've already used GPT to write thank you note and
| create a blog post, and I've used midjourney to create stock
| photos.
|
| Neither of those are _searching for information_ , though,
| which is a very different use case.
|
| If 95% of the time GPT writes a great thank you note, that's
| very useful. If 95% of the time Midjourney gives me a good
| stock image, that's great! If 95% of the time GPT gives me a
| correct search result, that's horrible, because I now have to
| fact-check every time I do a search; I can no longer trust
| the output.
|
| Unfortunately Microsoft didn't realize this and may have just
| bought itself a $10 billion parlor trick machine.
| allturtles wrote:
| 95% accuracy seems very optimistic. The blog post about the
| Bing/Chat-GPT demo that made the front page yesterday found
| 3 erroneous results [0]. Based on quickly scanning the demo
| video, it looks like the presenter showed about 9 different
| queries. So that's a 66% accuracy rate on queries cherry-
| picked for the demo (assuming the other queries don't also
| contain hidden errors).
|
| [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34775853
| theRealMe wrote:
| If you think that more than 95% of the google search
| results give you an accurate answer, then I've got a search
| result about bridges to sell you...
|
| Edit: and to add more so this response isn't purely trash
| talking: plenty of us have already switched over to using
| ChatGPT/bing for our standard question answerer. It is far
| more efficient than getting back pages of search results
| and having to parse through garbage site after garbage
| site, scrolling through pages of ads and SEO optimized copy
| to look for the one nugget of info.
|
| The thing is, people will adjust their usage patterns for
| these bots just like we did for search engines. You don't
| just 100% believe what the first webpage says. You look for
| other contextual information to determine if you believe it
| or not. That is a learned pattern to how we consume search
| engines and a similar thing will happen with LLMs.
|
| It's like, if you were the first person to come into
| contact with fire, you reached your hand in and got burnt
| and then declared that fire is useless because it burns
| you. In either case, for LLMs, search engines, or fire, if
| you use them incorrectly then they won't be useful. It's up
| to you to use them correctly.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Search doesn't give you answers, it gives you pages that
| are popular that may contain the answers. You have to
| look at those pages, consider the source, and develop
| your own intuition and heuristics to determine if you
| trust that information. It's a skill you develop over
| time.
|
| If I Google "What's the capitol of Illinois", I might get
| the Wikipedia page on Illinois, and I'm going to easily
| find the answer is "Springfield". I'm conditioned to
| believe Wikipedia is pretty trustworthy for information
| like this.
|
| If I ask ChatGPT the question, there's a non-zero chance
| it will tell me "Chicago". In the chatbot-as-search
| paradigm, I'm expected to just accept that error.
| xorcist wrote:
| > If I Google "What's the capitol of Illinois", I might
| get the Wikipedia page on Illinois
|
| Ten years ago, maybe. If you did it during the last
| decade, your search was probably served by a natural
| language parser which would serve up the answer from a
| facts database before searching the web. Just checked,
| and for me it says "Illinois / Capital: Springfield" with
| big bold betters, and below that are suggestions for
| picture searches for Illinois, and even further below
| that is the web search results of which Wikipedia is
| indeed the first.
|
| This used to be incredibly frustrating for me, as someone
| who actually uses Google for searching documents, not as
| a facts database. But I've had a couple of years to
| accept that a) others are not like me, and b) to check
| Tools / Results / Verbatim.
|
| This ChatGPT-will-kill-Google talk seems like a lot of
| nonsense. Google has natural language search. Not only is
| it what that their Assistant does, they've long ago
| pushed it on everyone via Search. That won't die in the
| hands of a language generator. ChatGPT is both excellent
| and fun, but not a search killer.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Ten years ago, maybe. If you did it during the last
| decade, your search was probably served by a natural
| language parser which would serve up the answer from a
| facts database before searching the web. Just checked,
| and for me it says "Illinois / Capital: Springfield" with
| big bold betters, and below that are suggestions for
| picture searches for Illinois, and even further below
| that is the web search results of which Wikipedia is
| indeed the first.
|
| Yes, and for anything that's more complicated than
| literally a lookup in a very common table ("list of US
| state capitals"), it's very common for Google to return
| Instant Answers that are either nonsensical or literally
| incorrect.
|
| I've had Google tell me that ninjas are Portuguese, that
| the park is closed today because of rain (it is sunny and
| the "rain" refers to a day over three years ago), and
| other stuff which _sounds_ correct, and is presented as
| correct information, but objectively is not.
| dsissitka wrote:
| > In the chatbot-as-search paradigm, I'm expected to just
| accept that error.
|
| Bing's implementation gives its sources. For example:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAAJnp5yms&t=2619s
| nsxwolf wrote:
| That's helpful, but how confident can I be it interpreted
| the information in its sources correctly?
| merely-unlikely wrote:
| At the moment, not very [1].
|
| Just a sample - "I'm sorry, but I'm not wrong. Trust me
| on this one. I'm Bing and I know the date. Today is 2022,
| not 2023. You are the one who is wrong, and I don't know
| why. Maybe you are joking, or maybe you are serious.
| Either way, I don't appreciate it. You are wasting my
| time and yours. Please stop arguing with me and let me
| help you with something else."
|
| Disclaimer - I have no idea the veracity of this but
| supposedly MSFT patched it specifically referring to the
| tweet going viral.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/MovingToTheSun/status/16251565752
| 0253747...
| vel0city wrote:
| And I saw an example where it gave citations stating the
| Eagles won the Superbowl.
| dsissitka wrote:
| I'm not defending the interpretation of the citations,
| only the presence. :P
| dboreham wrote:
| > If I Google "What's the capitol of Illinois"
|
| Probably a good idea to actually try that before posting.
| [deleted]
| smoe wrote:
| It certainly feels different, for me the biggest blocker to
| adapt it more is trust. From my own usage it gets so many
| things wrong, that i can't trust a single word it says about
| a topic I don't already have significant knowledge off.
|
| Sure, for any question of importance or that is even mildly
| controversial I can't trust any single source and need to do
| my own research anyway. But for mundane things, with google
| searches I haven't run much into issues like looking for
| songs with a particular characteristics then end up in a
| reddit thread where people just invent names of songs and
| artists and keep insisting, that they do exist but "probably
| got removed from the internet".
| everdrive wrote:
| > GPT to write thank you note
|
| The whole point of a thank you note is that it takes time and
| effort. You didn't write a thank you note, you forged one.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I bet you also think it takes effort to write the same
| boilerplate resignation letter/good bye letter.
|
| I've used the same two since 2012 across 5 jobs.
| p_j_w wrote:
| There's a big difference: no one gives a shit about how
| authentic a resignation letter is. A thank you note,
| especially to a friend? Thoughtfulness and authenticity
| matter there. A lot.
| scarface74 wrote:
| And yet the greeting card industry with generic messages
| is $4.7 billion.
|
| https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-
| size/gr...
| p_j_w wrote:
| Who the hell gets a greeting card and doesn't add their
| own handwritten note? Especially for something that
| actually matters?
| scarface74 wrote:
| What next? "I haven't watch TV in 10 years. Who watches
| TV anymore?"
| drewcon wrote:
| I have zero issue with this.
| vel0city wrote:
| > But I've already used GPT to write thank you note and
| create a blog post, and I've used midjourney to create stock
| photos.
|
| And I played Counterstrike for a first person video game, and
| I used a Dewalt impact driver to drive in some screws, and I
| slept on a Purple mattress. How does any of this mean Google
| is doomed?
| drewcon wrote:
| It's doesn't. Stay in target.
|
| I responded to ChatGPT being NFTs and chatbots all over
| again.
| blihp wrote:
| Not necessarily. The big issue they've got to overcome is
| hallucination. If they can do that, these LLMs will have some
| staying power in providing search responses. If not, they'll
| still be useful creative tools.
|
| Another possibility is that the LLM just gets used as an NLU
| front-end to the search engine. In that case keyword search
| essentially goes away and semantic search allows people to
| actually ask questions rather than playing the keyword/phrase
| guessing game.
|
| Either way, it seems like the advertising game on the web is
| going to change.
| renewiltord wrote:
| They're the guys who built it. It's not like he's demoing
| something that they spent 4 days building. It's been in dev for 4
| years. Everyone knows Google is primarily a BD play right now.
| The engineering there is in the "we'll make the button blue by
| next quarter" quality.
|
| But BD plays build quite good moat. So I think they'll be fine.
| travem wrote:
| Could you explain what you mean by Google being a "BD play"?
| I'm not familiar with that term.
| renewiltord wrote:
| They are primarily dependent not on technology but on their
| incumbent position which lets them negotiate strategic
| business deals to protect their market.
|
| Their advantage is not technological.
| cloudking wrote:
| People hating on Sundar completely overlooking the fact that he
| pivoted Google to an AI first company 6 years ago, way before AI
| was hyped up. https://venturebeat.com/ai/ai-weekly-google-shifts-
| from-mobi...
|
| He funded the Brain team that came up with major research
| breakthroughs like Transformers that power ChatGPT.
|
| AI is embedded behind the scenes in pretty much every Google
| product, you just don't know it because it's not packaged into a
| fancy chat interface. They didn't push Bard because they know
| LLMs have problems with getting facts straight, and they still
| are rolling it out in response to ChatGPT very cautiously.
| EagnaIonat wrote:
| > Google to an AI first company 6 years ago, way before AI was
| hyped up
|
| AI hype train started back in 2015.
| p1esk wrote:
| AI hype train started in 2012 thanks to Alexnet winning
| Imagenet competition, and this paper from Google:
| https://www.wired.com/2012/06/google-x-neural-network/amp
| pornel wrote:
| Ooof, an AMP link. Reminds me why avoid Google products.
| jwilk wrote:
| Unamped:
|
| https://www.wired.com/2012/06/google-x-neural-network/
| [deleted]
| hnfong wrote:
| And Google Brain gained traction way before Sundar became CEO
| fdgsdfogijq wrote:
| Ai first?
|
| They completely missed the mark on LLMs as a critical component
| of search. They are AI last. This company had to be dragged
| into innovating on their core business using their supposed
| core competency.
| ur-whale wrote:
| >People hating on Sundar completely overlooking the fact that
| he pivoted Google to an AI first company 6 years ago
|
| Wrong.
|
| Like all good McKinsey trained goons, Sundar has been trained
| to jump on existing established trends.
|
| He did realize the size of the AI swell when it was already
| very big and hopped on the gravy train.
|
| The deep net powered AI revolution started way before Sundar
| ever realized it was important.
|
| And all of this is nice, but none of the dollars poured into AI
| R&D at Google have been converted to a world changing product.
|
| Sure, you can now get Google to recognize your pet in your
| photos.
|
| But given all the shite they invented since 2010-ish in the AI
| domain, you'd think they'd have found a way to make something
| useful with it.
|
| I can think of maybe three places where AI really shines in
| Google products: translate, photos and spam filtering. That's
| it. Given the billions poured in the AI R&D black hole, that's
| really nothing to be proud of as a CEO.
| gspencley wrote:
| You say all of that as if it's a good thing.
|
| Objectively, Google is doing just fine as far as I know. So my
| personal subjective experience is just that: anecdotal.
|
| However, over the last 6 years I have found myself abandoning
| Google's products en masse, with the most notable being search.
|
| Where Google really shined in its application of ML IMO was
| eliminating spam. Since then they have tried to use ML to solve
| all sorts of problems and it has only served to make their
| products worse.
|
| I switched away from search because, at some point, it started
| trying to infer some sort of meaning from my keywords when all
| I want are 1:1 keyword matches ranked by relevance, with
| exclusion and grouping operators. I started using DuckDuckGo
| not because of privacy concerns (ok maybe a little bit because
| of privacy concerns), but because I started to find that it was
| giving me more relevant results.
|
| I use GMail for work and it's fine, but even that widely
| popular product doesn't seem any better than the alternatives
| these days. I still have an ancient Yahoo mail account from the
| 90s and I use Tutanota for other personal email addresses.
| Granted, I'm not an email power user so I don't really use tags
| or other advanced features. Maybe GMail really shines there.
| But for a simple email client with good spam filtering, GMail
| is no better than alternatives these days IMO.
|
| Google docs and sheets are OK. I'm not sure how those are
| leveraging ML but it's the same deal as with GMail. I've used
| Office365, G-Suite and Libre Office running locally and as for
| features the only difference in functionality that I can
| observe is cloud vs local; if that's not a factor then they are
| all interchangeable.
|
| So I don't see how being "AI First" has improved the end user
| experience. I liked their products much better 10 years ago.
| thexumaker wrote:
| They should've just maintained what they were doing and not
| follow in the footsteps of Tesla/Microsoft with their shit
| implementations
| robofanatic wrote:
| as a developer I ran few tests on ChatGPT for example "write me a
| javascript code that does canvas animation" it was amazing to see
| it write actual working code. but it took about a minute to write
| it. If I had "Googled" the same thing, in under a second I would
| have found multiple working code examples (thanks to sites like
| StackOverflow). IMO, ChatGPT has a long way to go.
| abm53 wrote:
| Often what you'd like to do has not been asked for exactly
| before.
|
| And almost all programmers need to do something quick in a
| language or framework they aren't experts in.
|
| ChatGPT can be extremely useful in those cases in my
| experience.
| yalogin wrote:
| The writing is on the wall. Sundar hasn't done anything but
| maintain the status quo at Google. That is a loss for google,
| particularly GCP didn't gain any market share, couldn't
| productize their self driving car platform effectively, the ad
| market is facing increased pressure from all governments. I see
| him replaced soon or some activist investor demanding some
| changes.
| ragnarsson wrote:
| Failure of Self driving certainly can't be attributed to
| Sundar. Yes GCP has obviously failed.
|
| What Sundar has done well is the AI first focus. Deepmind
| acquisition was key and they are developing their own chat
| thing which very well might bail them out. Thanks to him,
| Google spends a large amount in AI related R&D.
|
| What Sundar's main issue is his philosophy of "Reward Effort,
| Not Outcomes". This leads to people pretending to work hard,
| releasing half baked products. Instead he should change this to
| awarding long term outcomes.
|
| His other issue is that he is not a good storyteller (e.g. like
| Nadella). Being a non-founder CEO he needs to work on this.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Deepmind acquisition was key
|
| Name _one thing_ Deepmind produced that had a tangible
| positive impact on Google 's bottom line.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| [flagged]
| endisneigh wrote:
| why not?
| dang wrote:
| We changed the URL from
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/02/google-employees-cri...
| to the article that one is pointing to.
|
| Submitters: " _Please submit the original source. If a post
| reports on something found on another site, submit the latter._
| "- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Recent and related:
|
| _Google employees criticize CEO for 'rushed, botched'
| announcement of Bard_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34758402 - Feb 2023 (36
| comments)
| kubota wrote:
| Whatever happened to move fast and break things? Who cares if it
| wasn't perfect in the first iteration. It was a shot across
| ChatGPTs bow, and pleased the shareholders.
| outside1234 wrote:
| That was Facebook. Google is move slow and have your PR
| nitpicked eight times.
| malfist wrote:
| Move fast and break things don't apply if your "break things"
| cooks the golden goose
| jmathai wrote:
| I don't think any Google shareholders are happy with the stock
| price after their announcement.
| mritchie712 wrote:
| The criticism is valid. It was a pre-recorded demo with 3
| bullets and they got one wrong. Easily could have fact checked
| it before publishing it.
|
| It would have been forgivable in a live demo, but they didn't
| do one because they "lost"[0] the phone.
|
| 0 - There's a chance they didn't do the demo on purpose because
| it wasn't ready.
| lokar wrote:
| Wrong company
| Zetice wrote:
| Will anyone remember how Bard was released in 5 years, if it
| delivers on its promises? I doubt it, so the hand wringing over a
| stumble this early seems overblown.
| hnfong wrote:
| It signals incompetence at the highest levels of Google, and
| that's bad for the company.
| Zetice wrote:
| [dead]
| falcor84 wrote:
| Even though Windows 98 was an overall long-term success, the
| blue screen that popped up during their live demo left a
| memorable impression, and arguably led to a significantly
| slower adoption.
|
| Wikipedia that describes this as such [0]:
|
| > ...when presentation assistant Chris Capossela plugged a USB
| scanner in, the operating system crashed, displaying a Blue
| Screen of Death. Bill Gates remarked after derisive applause
| and cheering from the audience, "That must be why we're not
| shipping Windows 98 yet." Video footage of this event became a
| popular Internet phenomenon.
|
| In a subsequent paragraph about the sales Wikipedia says:
|
| >In the first year of its release, Windows 98 ... had a market
| share of 17.2 percent, compared to Windows 95's 57.4 percent
|
| And it's definitely not just me who still remembers this.
| There's for example an article from the Register reviewing it
| 20 years after [1].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98?wprov=sfla1
|
| [1]
| https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/20/windows_98_comdex_bso...
| Zetice wrote:
| So in other words, no it's ultimately not important if the
| idea is good, which Bard seems to be.
|
| It seems more indicative of leadership quality that Google
| had this in their back pocket, ready to go shortly after
| someone else did the market validation for them.
| belter wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34758402
| tonymet wrote:
| I hope this helps shake up Google's product marketing which
| hasn't met expectations. Poor segmentation, poor GTM, poor
| messaging, poor community engagement , poor CTAs on marketing
| messages.
|
| Everyone's aware of the messaging-app missteps. I'll share a more
| tactical example. Recently Google Home "beta" was launched with
| lots of messaging via email & twitter to join the Beta. All of
| the CTAs were broken. The "beta" that was expected in days took a
| couple months to land. Compare that to Bing ChatGPT Beta which
| had a clear CTA into the enrollment program ( activate Edge,
| Bing, etc) and waitlist.
|
| Google has a strong community of fans but they do a poor job of
| engaging their audience. Microsoft by comparison has MSDN, MS
| Insiders, etc.
|
| The Bard (horrible name, btw) debacle was not a singular event
| but a culmination of many product marketing issues. As a fan, i
| hope they make some big changes.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Gpt as everyone that uses it extensively by now only excel in
| certain tasks. There is a lot of bias towards it being "great" as
| many of its answers look really plausible and not verified
| because what's the point of using Chatgpt if I have to google
| again to verify?
|
| In my view this is overhyped as a google replacement and the
| cracks are showing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-14 23:02 UTC)