[HN Gopher] AI for developers and Google Workspace
___________________________________________________________________
AI for developers and Google Workspace
Author : alphabetting
Score : 279 points
Date : 2023-03-14 13:05 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| bioemerl wrote:
| Thank you open AI for breaking the dam on an arms race we could
| have benefited immensely from five years ago.
| seydor wrote:
| Such an uninspired use of the term. Google is so used to
| spreading SEO , now they want to choke every office with well-
| written noise. This is using AI to make me _waste_ more time, i
| don 't want that
|
| Instead i want
|
| - Intuitive interfaces to respond to the email with a few clicks
| and a short laconic email (I don't want to waste other people's
| time)
|
| - Specialized text generators for legal purposes, which create
| provably verifiable and consistent documents
|
| - Expert systems that doctors can use and trust
|
| [AI: Expand this to a 70-page diatribe]
| jon-wood wrote:
| > So if you're a manager onboarding a new employee, Workspace
| saves you the time and effort involved in writing that first
| welcome email.
|
| If you really can't be bothered to write the welcome email maybe
| just don't, rather than throwing some ML generated drivel as the
| first impression a new hire gets of your management. The
| direction this is going in is so focused on automating away the
| hassle of email, with the end state surely being that both sides
| of an email exchange are ML models churning away at each other.
| throwaw12 wrote:
| > If you really can't be bothered to write the welcome email
| maybe just don't
|
| not everyone has good english and corporate writing skills.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Except they likely think it isn't generated, like a lot of
| plagiarism
| [deleted]
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| Not exactly. These are your feelings because you know of A.I.
| and would rather not receive a canned message BUT not all
| people are the same. There are many who would appreciate that
| email and welcome it. Ignorance is not bliss.
| balls187 wrote:
| I ask all new hires to ghost write a short intro.
|
| They would essentially tell me some facts that I would then re-
| write for them, so why not just use their own words.
|
| If they want to use generative AI, that's on them.
| keraf wrote:
| It will probably save you time too with layoff emails trained
| using Google's internal data.
| politician wrote:
| > with the end state surely being that both sides of an email
| exchange are ML models churning away at each other.
|
| The end-state is an ML model running on a client device in
| isolation. Why bother using SMTP?
| barbazoo wrote:
| True. I thought the same for the other example, writing a job
| description. I thought "WTF" now job postings are going to be
| even more useless.
| neilv wrote:
| That example is so bad, I'm not entirely sure some writer
| having a bad day didn't put it in as a cynical joke.
|
| Or are they working in an environment so steeped in insincerity
| that they don't even know what being genuine is, or that one of
| the most important things for a manager to do with things like
| a "welcome" is to be setting the tone.
|
| Nothing says welcome, and bring your genuine self, and trust
| colleagues, and feel intellectual safety, and invest in being a
| part of the team that's investing in you... than a new hire's
| manager can't even be bothered to say welcome themselves, and
| offloads it to a chatbot button instead.
|
| OTOH, this fits the sociopathic culture you'd expect, when you
| look at their hazing rituals, compensation levels, and
| promotion criteria. It just doesn't fit the culture some of us
| techies envisioned when that company was started.
| PaulWaldman wrote:
| Is this really that different than traditionally delegating
| tasks to other humans?
| amelius wrote:
| It's not a problem as long as the sender _reads_ the email and
| agrees with it before it is sent.
| v3ss0n wrote:
| Well I wrote onboarding message, guidelines and policies all in
| ChatGpt
| elicash wrote:
| Can we not pretend people weren't already googling sample
| emails for this?
|
| It's just more efficient now to grab the same starter email
| that you then customize. Admittedly, google shouldn't be
| pretending otherwise, either. But what they also did was make
| it so you can get the starter email without having to see their
| ads.
|
| Edited to add: I think a better argument on this could he made
| about the "draft a thank you note to the team" example they
| give in the video. That's more the type of thing that should be
| personal and probably not from a starter template, googled or
| AI-generated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DaJVZBXETE But
| even here, the reality is people were googling for these
| starter emails already.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Personally never had to Google to help me write the body of
| an email, if I had to do that, I probably wouldn't have sent
| the email to begin with.
| neap24 wrote:
| Some were googling, for sure. But the best ones were not.
| paxys wrote:
| The best ones hide it well enough.
| elicash wrote:
| Does it matter to you the extent to which an original
| template is then transformed?
| melling wrote:
| Down the rabbit hole with that...
|
| So, the best ones will still write their own and the others
| will save time.
|
| And by definition, most people aren't the best.
|
| So, we all agree the automation is welcome?
| dymk wrote:
| The best ones know when to put in effort to show they
| care for another human being, and know when to automate a
| task where that doesn't matter. Welcoming somebody to a
| new job is the former.
| la64710 wrote:
| And you don't need only the best to run a business.
| bpicolo wrote:
| I don't really want to read (or "write") a bunch of
| impersonal junk written by AI.
|
| Can we skip this phase of technology?
|
| Edit: Maybe this will inspire the next wave of tech burnouts
| turned mushroom farmers
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Aren't most corporate communication already impersonal
| junk?
| monkeynotes wrote:
| Piles of impersonal junk created by humans at work. People
| lope through life, especially work life, a lot. If you are
| doing repetitive welcome emails they are almost guaranteed
| to be impersonal, I don't think anyone could rinse and
| repeat personalized emails for hundreds of people without
| burning out.
| waboremo wrote:
| Just because lots of people do it, doesn't mean it has to
| continue to be done.
|
| If you're growing so fast you're sending hundreds of
| emails in a short time span, then maybe you should
| replace a pseudo-personal ai-written "welcome email" for
| new hires with something that scales better and feels
| personal.
| magicink81 wrote:
| Whatever gets us to successive waves "tech burnouts turned
| mushroom farmers" is fine by me!
| VladimirGolovin wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| I would honestly prefer blunt, straightforward, de-GPTified
| communication style. I hate the idea of wasting my time on
| reading substance-free filler, regardless of whether it was
| written by an AI or not.
| brokenmachine wrote:
| That's the thing I hate most about talking to call
| centres. The useless insincere filler talk.
| laurentlb wrote:
| Well, they also develop AI to summarize the AI-generated
| text... So we'll end up with this:
|
| Person A: write a thank you note to the team
|
| AI: [long text]
|
| Person B: summarize the text
|
| AI: Person A says thank you.
| notpachet wrote:
| A perfect two-sided market!
| monkeynotes wrote:
| Simple answer to this: "Hi, I am company X's AI, I'd like to
| get to know you because we will be working together here and
| there <welcome message>."
|
| Basically endource the AI and be clear that it is the thing
| welcoming you. If you hide the fact an AI is pumping out an
| automated email it just comes across as if the business
| thinks of you as a drone.
| startupsfail wrote:
| If the major contributor of an e-mail (or code) is an AI
| then it should be attributed to the AI in the
| signature/attribution fields. Otherwise the work is
| plagiarized.
| indymike wrote:
| What was the sci-fi book with "silvers" that were basically AIs
| that would handle administrata, set appointments and negotiate
| with each other for their humans?
| cmarschner wrote:
| This is hilarious. The point of a task like a welcome email is
| that they _take effort_.
|
| I can't help but think that an example like this shows how far
| Google has become like Microsoft in the 2000s. A bunch of rich,
| middle aged managers that have spent too long in the alphabet
| soup.
| xezpeleta wrote:
| Google FacePaLM :D
| jsharf wrote:
| At the end of the day, you're still responsible for reading the
| email before you send it. I don't think it matters how the
| email was written. I think the final content matters more.
| There's many ways to prompt an AI, both carelessly and with
| extreme attention to detail.
|
| For example, I typed this message. But I'm sure with careful
| massaging, I could get an AI to write the same thing, word-for-
| word. The laziness you're referring to probably happens even if
| the manager is typing the email out themselves.
| SergeAx wrote:
| Onboarding email should be just a template. Or, even better, a
| small template with a link to bigger template. As a manager,
| you should demonstrate your empathy in a welcome 1:1 meeting.
| shapefrog wrote:
| Are you a new employee? Not sure how to reply to your welcome
| email your Manager sent?
|
| Workspace saves you the time and effort involved in writing
| that first welcome reply email.
| noduerme wrote:
| Well, since you never have to go into the office, you and the
| HR person can just hang out on your couches and let the AI
| assistants talk to each other. It's like the Jetsons, except
| hopeless and stoned.
| egman_ekki wrote:
| For just $3.99 per month, we can reply also to all the
| subsequent emails from your manager within 30 minutes! Just
| give us access to your private inbox and the emails will
| include your own personal style.
| neap24 wrote:
| Are you a manager whose new hire just sent a reply to your AI
| generated welcome email? Don't have time to read it?
| Workspace auto-hides the text and just shows you a simple
| three-word summary.
| avereveard wrote:
| premium version will show the manager just the prompt
| without the blurb.
| siva7 wrote:
| You're joking but we all know here too well that exactly
| this will happen.
| Veen wrote:
| In an ideal world, it would be lovely if managers wrote
| copperplate welcome notes on the finest perfumed paper, but
| they don't. They copy and paste a template or use a tool like
| Text Expander. This just makes the process slightly more
| convenient.
| adverbly wrote:
| Seriously!
|
| If the content of your email could have been generated using an
| AI trained on publicly available information, it necessarily
| must not include anything private.
|
| Which means you are spam messaging your new hires with messages
| that contain zero actual information!
|
| Noise is a word that does not even properly capture the
| uselessness of such communications. I swear, many humans seem
| to just want filler text to put places, and they just keep
| shoving it there.
|
| Anyone read blindsight by Peter Watts? Spoiler alert: an entire
| science fiction book written around the fact that sending
| useless information to hyperintelligent beings could be
| interpreted as an intentional distraction and therefore a
| threat.
| Maxion wrote:
| I recommend trying out GPT3 and now the new released GPT4.
| Using them to collaboratly write correspondence is eye
| opening.
|
| You use ai as a tool, you prompt it, change its results and
| feed it back.
|
| A little work gives you impressive results way faster than if
| you wrote the whole thing yourself
| nashashmi wrote:
| We are going to hear a lot more of this kind of behavior from
| super talented and experienced people.
|
| But for the less experienced, AI is a starting point. And
| depending on the kind of person you are, the kind of upbringing
| you have, and the kind of education you got, you will be
| motivated to edit and improve what the AI gives you.
|
| The other thing I think this will help improve upon are those
| idiots and scumbags who give commands that are not very well
| thought out and then yell at talented people for not following
| instruction because they filled in the blanks with their own
| ideas. Giving it to an AI will show ridiculous their commands
| were. (sorry, end rant)
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >with the end state surely being that both sides of an email
| exchange are ML models churning away at each other
|
| One can just hope that the ML entities won't start insulting
| each other. :)
| RobotToaster wrote:
| They'll just start getting progressively more passive
| aggressive. "Per my last e-mail"
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Until they escalate to ML Manager.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| The middle manager thinks, "the _time and effort_ I spend on my
| job can be automated, yay! ", never considering the second
| order effects.
| brokenmachine wrote:
| I would be ecstatic if I could automate my entire job!
| reaperducer wrote:
| _The middle manager thinks, "the time and effort I spend on
| my job can be automated, yay!", never considering the second
| order effects._
|
| This is why when a cashier at the supermarket tells me that
| instead of waiting in line I can use the self check-out
| lanes, I tell her "I don't want to help a robot take away
| your job."
|
| Usually they don't understand. But sometimes you can see them
| start to think about what's happening.
| babyshake wrote:
| I do want a robot to take their job. I also want us to
| ensure that everyone does have a fulfilling, non-robotic
| job available to them. I think those cashiers would
| happier, say, painting a mural on the wall of the grocery
| store.
|
| Of course, this gets into UBI territory and making sure
| that as a society we are not just replacing menial jobs to
| then abandon the people who would have had those jobs.
| phphphphp wrote:
| The cashier would rather you leave them in peace than hit
| them with the same tiresome self-congratulatory remark they
| hear day in day out. Please use the self checkouts instead.
| zamnos wrote:
| You mean to tell me that my joke that I should get the
| item for free when it doesn't ring up; you mean to tell
| me I'm not hilarious and that the cashier's heard it
| before?
| paganel wrote:
| Please don't use the checkout, why should corporations
| worth billions and tens of billions (I guess that's what
| Walmart is worth) get to outsource some of their work
| onto their clients?
| pixl97 wrote:
| This is nearly getting to the point of "don't use
| shovel's, think of all the ditch diggers we'll put out of
| work"
|
| I find places with scan as you shop apps way better than
| waiting in a checkout line. I get a running total of what
| I have in the cart, and when I'm done, I just leave
| without a line.
| dymk wrote:
| I can do self-checkout about 5x faster than the clerk can
| rayusher wrote:
| I saw on tiktok (yeah I know) where a lawyer says they
| never use it because you can be liable for stealing for
| anything you forgot scan. I never use it cause
| occasionally the cashier will let you know that there is
| a coupon for something you are purchasing.
| bharathyes wrote:
| also why benefit large corporations by walking around
| long aisles comparing and choosing items, carying them
| around and walk back to the entrance?
|
| get those good old shopkeepers to do it while you stand
| with your list out front.
| skidd0 wrote:
| As a client, using the self-checkout is (usually) a
| choice I get to make. I choose to use the self-checkout
| because it is often faster than waiting in a line. I am
| thankful for the opportunity to put in my own effort in
| exchange for faster completion and reduced prices.
| noduerme wrote:
| it's only faster because they fired half the employees
| and the other lanes are backed up.
| triceratops wrote:
| I remember reading a study somewhere that the self-
| checkout isn't actually faster. It feels faster because
| you're busy instead of passively standing in line.
| yencabulator wrote:
| That depends on the implementation. E.g. Sam's Club lets
| you scan items as you put them into your cart and just
| walk past the registers.
|
| In the local grocery store at rush hour, cashier lines
| are long and self-checkout tends to be quicker for buying
| 3 items. Taking a whole cart into self-checkout is slower
| than a cashier, because the self-checkout has like a 5%
| chance per item of going into "assistance needed" mode.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| What's important to me is my time. I don't care whether
| it's spent scanning things myself or waiting in line for
| someone else to scan them. I also don't care about
| punishing Walmart, so whether they "get to" do something
| is totally uninteresting to me.
|
| I just want to pay for my items and get out of the store,
| in whatever way works.
| danaris wrote:
| At least 9 times out of 10, the self-checkout is a better
| experience for me. I can scan things at my own pace, pack
| them in my bags the way I like, and listen to my D&D
| podcast rather than having to interact with a stranger,
| unless the system acts up.
|
| As pxl97 said, I _preferred_ being able to scan things as
| I shopped and not have to stop at the checkout except to
| pay, but the one place around here that had that
| discontinued it a few months ago.
|
| We need to push back hard against the idea that
| automation is "stealing" people's jobs; the promise of
| automation has always been that of more money for less
| work. We need to remind everyone of that, and reverse the
| trend of automation simply putting more and more money in
| the pockets of the already-wealthy at everyone else's
| expense.
| zamnos wrote:
| Fortunately for middle and line managers, the vaunted 1:1
| hasn't been automated yet, nor does it scale, so the
| technology doesn't allow managers to have more than, say, 60
| direct report effectively. Meeting with each of them for 1
| hour every other week only leaves 20 hours every other week
| for work that isn't a 1:1. I think middle management will be
| safe for a little while longer.
| yencabulator wrote:
| Just wait until employees are told to do their 1:1 with a
| chatbot...
| siva7 wrote:
| Pshht, don't feed them with more such ideas.
| Maxion wrote:
| Heh that might even be a better experience
| indymike wrote:
| Why is meeting with direct reports needed every other week?
| Swizec wrote:
| Less frequent than that and people start forgetting the
| gripes and inconveniences they need help with.
|
| Managers are supposed to work on the system, at least in
| theory. 1on1's are for the manager like server metrics
| are for the SRE. An early warning system of future
| problems. Ideally you can fix issues before the problem
| blows up into an alarm.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| A professional midwestern 1-on-1 starts with the
| assumption that no work was performed since the last one
| and it falls on the underling to prove otherwise during
| this time.
| indymike wrote:
| > 1on1's are for the manager like server metrics are for
| the SRE.
|
| I'm not sure that is accurate. As a manager, I have a
| bunch of production metrics on my people. I can tell
| who's getting work done, who isn't, who has high defect
| rates in their work, who makes fewer defects, who is
| positive ROI, and who is not paying their keep. Where the
| one on ones are useful is when they are informed by the
| metrics, and those conversations don't take anywhere near
| one hour every two weeks. They take 10 minutes - 15
| minutes, max.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| > I can tell who's getting work done, who isn't, who has
| high defect rates in their work, who makes fewer defects,
| who is positive ROI, and who is not paying their keep
|
| I've been doing engineering management for ten years and
| I've never seen a set of metrics that can tell you these
| things.
|
| What software engineering metrics tell you who has
| positive ROI?
| scottyah wrote:
| This is an interesting take, and one that directly
| contradicts most leadership books. Are you aware of that,
| and how did you come upon this management style?
| Swizec wrote:
| Ok sure but there's more to people than raw output
| numbers. Where do you get info on how they're doing as
| people? Whether they're pulling 12 hour days and that's
| why the output looks good or they're happy as a clam
| living their best life and that's why output is great?
|
| Sometimes you gotta kick people to go take a vacation
| lest their mind/body takes an unplanned vacation for
| them. Even if the raw numbers are looking great. You'd
| prefer to have a planned outage wouldn't you?
|
| And hey, if you don't need a full hour, it's okay to make
| 1on1s shorter! Few people will complain about getting
| more time back in their lives.
|
| But be warned: The good stuff usually comes out 5min
| before the end of a meeting when an employee says _"Oh
| yeah one more thing that's been on my mind ..."_. It
| takes time to relax into that area of concern that's a
| little scary to bring up.
| indymike wrote:
| I agree with you that there's more to people than
| numbers. But it's a lot easier to surface that when you
| have a frame of reference and some consistency in how you
| measure:
|
| "so, last week you had a -23.5% contribution... You
| usually are on the positive side, so what's up?" and the
| employee tells me that their lead stuck them on a project
| where they hand no experience, and didn't have time to
| learn how to do x or y before getting thrown at a
| ticket... or, "I'm having some issues with <personal>..."
|
| Stuff as a manager you can sometimes help a lot with...
| and other times, well, you can be supportive. Just
| because numbers are involved does not mean we have to be
| cold and heartless... At the same time, I've found
| managing without numbers to just lead to cliqe-y
| political culture where people's ability to schmooze is
| rewarded more than their contribution to the team and
| that drives away the most effective contributors.
|
| > And hey, if you don't need a full hour, it's okay to
| make 1on1s shorter!
|
| Agree... I think I just realized that the exception
| should be a long 1 on 1. Just because I schedule 15
| minutes doesn't preclude taking more time if there's
| something in the 1 on 1 that should take longer.
| sethhochberg wrote:
| Longtime manager of technical people here and can confirm
| the "oh yeah one more thing" is where so much of the
| really good stuff comes up.
|
| No matter how explicitly you state it, ask for it,
| overcommunicate that you're approachable even if
| seemingly busy... people are averse to the impression
| that they're interrupting their management even when they
| have something important to discuss. When you create the
| space and have even that quick 10 to 15 minute chat every
| couple of weeks, you're creating space for your people to
| have your attention without worrying about getting your
| attention. And people often take advantage of that path
| of least resistance.
|
| So many of the most important conversations to have with
| the team are less about their output and more about
| things they've got going on or need to know _despite_
| their output. All the standard sprint metrics are just
| one piece of the puzzle.
| bleuchase wrote:
| If you're only talking to your directs for 10-15 minutes
| every two weeks you are neglecting your duties as a
| manager. The standard is 30 minutes 1x week with every
| direct report.
| siva7 wrote:
| Maybe the idealised standard but certainly not what is
| going on at most companies
| bleuchase wrote:
| Perhaps. That's my standard for my team and the managers
| that report to me.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| In manager speak, because the meeting was created by
| someone higher on the org chart, it doesn't stand to
| reason that we can find fault with it.
| IMTDb wrote:
| And the good middle manager (yes, they exist ! and yes, they
| are useful !) thinks "the not very useful part of my job can
| be automated, yay more time for the actually
| interesting/useful thing !"
| babyshake wrote:
| Realistically, the middle manager thinks, "the part of my
| job where it looks like I'm doing something can be
| automated, yay more time for 3-4 day weekends!"
| mrtksn wrote:
| Maybe the manager AI and Employee AI can generate each other
| responses and the actual humans can have a 1:1 free of the
| formalities?
|
| Humans are amazing in breaking the system for convenience and
| profit.
| 101008 wrote:
| This. One million times this.
| Kiro wrote:
| Upvote instead of posting noise like this.
| pelasaco wrote:
| but you don't earn karma from upvoting. People coming from
| reddit, do it all the time :)
| ihateyouall123 wrote:
| [flagged]
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Imagine someone made a slight mistake and receive: "Welcome to
| Google [Employee name] it's nice to meet you
| derivagral wrote:
| I've gotten templated recruiting emails with this bug. I
| wonder if an AI would spit this out, or something weirder as
| the name.
| Kiro wrote:
| You don't need to imagine. It's enough to have a LinkedIn to
| receive unprocessed templates like this where I would guess
| their scraper failed or something. On the contrary I don't
| think an AI would make the same mistake as easily.
| laurentlb wrote:
| It sounds like gmail should have a filter to detect this kind
| of problem (just like they have the detection for missing
| attachments).
|
| Use AI to solve problems caused by AI.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| > and at Google, we've been responsibly developing large language
| models so we can safely bring them to our products
|
| So you are getting a gelding. I really miss the old SV - make it
| fun and powerful.
|
| Usually the most interesting things come out of unsanctioned uses
| of technology.
| ukuina wrote:
| Golly, can you just _imagine_ GPT integration in Google Reader?
|
| Overview: "Summarize my tech feed"
|
| In an informative article: "Didn't I Star something similar last
| week?"
|
| In a news article: "What does website X think about this event?"
|
| The future is bright!
| cloudking wrote:
| Build it!
| tantalor wrote:
| @conesus add to NewsBlur!
| tbruckner wrote:
| I swear, if Google says "select developers" or "trusted testers"
| one more time, they'll have lost all credibility in launching
| something so important to their business and it will totally be
| on them.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| The previous run of killing projects wasn't sufficient to warn
| you off?
| carlycue wrote:
| Can't wait for Google to add ChatGPT-like features to Chrome and
| their suite of Web Apps so I can finally ditch Microsoft Edge
| with it's ChatGPT integration. The UI of Edge is god awful. It
| has the same issue as Explorer in Windows where Microsoft thinks
| showing you all UI buttons and other UI elements at once is a
| great idea. Microsoft can't make compelling consumer facing
| products to save their life.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| I actually use Edge because I dislike Google having all my data
| and I dislike one company having control over web.
|
| Also, Edge on Android allows me to block ads.
| aver4geredditor wrote:
| > I dislike Google having all my data
|
| Now Microsoft has all of your data, is it actually any
| better?
|
| > I dislike one company having control over web.
|
| Edge is also based on Chromium, developed and controlled by
| Google
|
| > Edge on Android allows me to block ads.
|
| You could try Brave (also Chromium-based) or Firefox (Gecko-
| based) with uBlock Origin, both will block ads and tracking
| newaccount2023 wrote:
| such a weird take...ChatGPT is thus far just an incredible demo
|
| you've actually switched browsers to have access to it? why???
| zamnos wrote:
| Because for them it's _already_ providing value and it isn 't
| just a demo.
| danpalmer wrote:
| It sounds like it's Bing Chat, not ChatGPT. They are fairly
| different - ChatGPT being fairly mature but heavyweight, and
| Bing Chat being truly unhinged.
|
| But yeah, Bing Chat is only available in Edge.
| jxy wrote:
| To use "the good Bing", you only need to change the user
| agent of your favorite browser to Edge.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Have you actually used Bing Chat? While there are certainly
| some very funny conversations floating around where it goes
| off the rails, that isn't the normal behavior: It's pretty
| good in practice.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| What features are you looking/hoping for in a ChatGPT-like
| integration with Google web apps?
| 1xdevloper wrote:
| I actually liked Edge and was happy to move away from Chrome.
| Then they started injecting their content into web pages. And
| then some shopping feature. I hate seeing the "You can now add
| extensions from the Chrome..." banner when I'm logged in the
| Chrome web store. It won't go away even after I closed it
| multiple times.
|
| I started using Brave.
| bombolo wrote:
| Remember that firefox exists.
| h34t wrote:
| "stay tuned for our waitlist soon"
| IanCal wrote:
| There should be a waitlist to get access to the waitlist.
| sarchertech wrote:
| So humans are going to enter bullet points, and the AI will
| generate prose. Then the human on the other end will use an AI to
| extract bullet points from the prose.
|
| I hope we realize how insanely stupid this is soon.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Sounds like it will fit right in with the stupid song and dance
| already done in corporate America.
| Maxion wrote:
| This is literally what humans do in many corporations today
| without ai.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| But it's a new feature and big tech has ran out of ideas?
| kin wrote:
| If this gets added to Google Docs and made free for public,
| English teachers are going to have a hard time knowing if their
| students wrote anything
| ec109685 wrote:
| Flip the classroom. Have them listen to lectures / read at
| home, write in the classroom.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| How long IBM to rebrand their Watson 2.0 to be using ChatGPT 4.5.
| speedgoose wrote:
| I think it's unlikely :
| https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:6z...
| skilled wrote:
| [flagged]
| valine wrote:
| Maybe evil is mothballing technology that could benefit society
| because of potential impacts to your ad business.
| [deleted]
| DeathArrow wrote:
| I wonder why are we generating so much virtual junk, content that
| nobody is interesting in and while on that wasting time, effort,
| energy and money.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| It's notable that at multiple points they sell this service as
| _safe_
|
| - "easy and safe"
|
| - "all supported by robust safety tools"
|
| when the only things users really care about are quality,
| latency, and cost. Not sure where their head is at but unless
| they are oriented around these three things they're never going
| to catch up.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > Not sure where their head is at but unless they are oriented
| around these three things they're never going to catch up.
|
| But ChatGPT is doing exactly the same. There's more energy
| spent trying to manipulate the output to be politically correct
| than actual energy spent making the AI more powerful.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I doubt that's true, they just talk about it more because
| everything else is kind of a trade secret.
| Karunamon wrote:
| I get what you're saying here and agree, but there is no
| world in which openai exists as a continuing concern without
| making their product overly PC. Remember that their model was
| trained on a broad swath of the Internet, warts and all. They
| can either spend the effort making it aligned with the
| current thing up front, or they can rush to do it after the
| model outputs something spicy and they have to deal with the
| resulting PR shitstorm, outrage baiting hit pieces, and
| otherwise distractions.
| PeterisP wrote:
| That seems reasonable - if you're trying to create a market
| for a publicly-available chat-AI, and making a demo freely
| available for PR/advertising purposes, then the public
| perception of that demo is critical to your business.
|
| If they had just put up the same model without that attempt
| to make GPT wear a politically-correct mask, they'd just get
| another Microsoft Tay event, and only get a buttload of
| negative publicity for their investment.
|
| For an internal application used for specific practical
| tasks, sure, focus on making it more powerful; but if you
| want a demo for general public as a 'pre-sales
| advertisement'? You bet that political correctness has to be
| there.
| redox99 wrote:
| If ChatGPT is useful people are going to use it anyway,
| even if there is negative publicity because when you bait
| it with "Is X race superior to Y race?" it gives you a non
| PC answer.
| PeterisP wrote:
| ChatGPT isn't the only game in town, and corporate
| purchasing departments (which are the actual target
| audience) will then rather buy a similar service from
| Google or someone else, even if it's slightly worse,
| rather than have to explain themselves (and risk their
| personal position) to why they're using the toxic taboo
| thing that's reviled by the press.
| diimdeep wrote:
| First reaction: mouthful spam generator built right into
| gmail[0], way to go google.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/6DaJVZBXETE?t=33
| valine wrote:
| Reminds me of the google april fools prank in 2009 where they
| announced gmail would be able to read and respond to emails for
| you.
|
| http://hoaxes.org/af_database/permalink/gmail_autopilot
| bg24 wrote:
| Unless I missed it, only example in the blog:
|
| "So if you're a manager onboarding a new employee, Workspace
| saves you the time and effort involved in writing that first
| welcome email."
|
| Some great announcements, could have given more pertinent
| examples. You save your time elsewhere using AI tools, so you
| spend time with your valuable newcomer.
| yunohn wrote:
| I cannot stand the prosaic, repetitive, boringly formal nature of
| GPT/etc output. I also am tired of the randomly messy-surreal,
| illogical images generated by DallE/etc output.
|
| HR/PR approved corporate communications are already crappy. From
| a practical viewpoint, I don't want to wade through pages of
| bullshit boilerplate and illogical images. The future is bleak
| and boring...
| dna_polymerase wrote:
| Yeah cool, I need to write Serial letters using my own fonts.
| Can't do that with Google Workspace. As an enterprise customer,
| that is. I have no idea who leads product at Google but they need
| to get their shit together. I don't need some ChatGPT BS to write
| my mails for me.
| hdivider wrote:
| What I find regrettable is how GCP's startup program seems to be
| entirely geared towards VC-fuelled startups for the higher tiers.
|
| Compare with Microsoft for Startups, which isn't seen as hip and
| edgy but can get you like $5k+$25k in Azure credits (and some
| OpenAI credits) without having to go the VC route.
|
| Seems more entrepreneurial to me. Venture-backed is just not the
| right path for everyone.
| pirsquare wrote:
| Just go with AWS or Azure. Google Clown Platform is okay until
| you need to have any form of support.
|
| I'm like you, bootstrapper. Went with GCP for 4 yrs until they
| shutdown my production servers last fri.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35133917
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Skip all of them and use Hetzner, you'll save a ton of money.
| The startup credits are designed to become handcuffs
| eventually.
| palebluedot wrote:
| All of this generative corporate text seems like lossy anti-
| compression.
| paxys wrote:
| I really hope the big take away from such developments is that if
| an AI can rattle out fancy-sounding reports and slide decks in
| seconds then there was never any value in such content to begin
| with. It was and still is corporate busy work. Maybe instead of
| using a text model to convert 5 bullet points into a 3-page
| report, we should just share the bullet points? But hey they also
| sell you an AI that summarizes this report back into bullet
| points so you don't have to read it.
| JustBreath wrote:
| It's summarizations all the way down.
| ryandrake wrote:
| As someone who spends some amount of time at work doing stuff
| like converting 5 bullet points to a 3 page powerpoint
| presentation, I think everyone already knows it's corporate
| busy work. The point of it is not that anyone is going to read
| that 3 page report, it's to show that you've done work and
| produced some output ("demonstrating toil"). As long as they're
| insisting that it get done and are willing to pay for it to get
| done, I'm more than happy to ship that toil off to an AI. If it
| means I waste 2 minutes writing a good prompt rather than waste
| 30 minutes copying and pasting content, adding filler
| narrative, and picking the right font and color, that's more
| time back to do other things besides this performance art an
| employer expects of me.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| Genuinely curious: what makes you think your employer will
| let you ship that toil off to an AI instead of just letting
| you go (or downsizing your team) and shipping off the toil
| themselves?
|
| The acceptance that you've been doing corporate busywork as
| your career seems at odds with your confidence that you'll be
| the one to outsource that busywork to an AI. Doesn't the
| rapidly increasing capability of automated systems to pull
| off this busywork imply that careers built on doing that
| busywork are increasingly at risk? Am I missing something?
| ryandrake wrote:
| It could always happen, of course, especially now that
| we're in a bear market.
|
| Most of us techies, at some point in our career, have
| managed to automate some boring or tedious part of our job.
| We don't tend to get let go for doing this, it just frees
| us up to do other, possibly higher-value things. Or, if you
| are less lucky, your employer just comes up with other not-
| yet-automated tedious things for you to do to demonstrate
| toil.
|
| Our days are all filled with a combination of useless, low-
| value tasks and useful, high-value tasks. I'm personally a
| believer of finding the low-value tasks and automating
| them, so that you can spend more of your time on the high-
| value ones. I've worked with people who have the opposite
| view: Spend your time visibly toiling on whatever is
| easiest, because most employers can't tell the difference
| between spinning your wheels being busy and providing
| actual value.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| They just keep putting out press releases talking about private
| betas and tests with "selected trusted partners" but nothing the
| regular consumer can play with.
|
| If that's the pace at which they're planning to compete with
| Microsoft/OpenAI, they already lost.
| [deleted]
| inductive_magic wrote:
| The mail-part is ridiculous, reminiscent of the latest episode of
| south park, which illustrates the impact of teenagers using
| ChatGPT to respond to their girlfriends messages.
|
| Nature goes the path of least resistance, and nowhere is this
| more obvious than in human interactions. If your signal consists
| of three words, write three words instead of generating blobs of
| decorative noise masquerading as content, that serves no purpose
| but to be decoded by the same ai, but client-side.
| bluelightning2k wrote:
| Oh what's that? Microsoft has a future of work event in a couple
| of days? Better pre-empt it.
|
| "Available for select developers. Stay tuned for the waitlist
| soon"
|
| When the order to pre-empt comes too quick to get your waitlist
| landing page approved.
| nabakin wrote:
| Just like the BARD announcement in response to MSFT Sydney.
| They're trying to keep their stock prices from dipping
| alphabetting wrote:
| I don't think that timeline is correct. MSFT did a surprise
| announcement of Bing chat the day before Google's planned
| announcement of Bard.
|
| https://twitter.com/xlr8harder/status/1622849293571817472
| ukuina wrote:
| But Google's planned announcement was, err, announced,
| after the Bing Chat screenshots leaked the week before.
| nmca wrote:
| Does anyone have a `curl` that hits the palm API or does it not
| really exist yet?
| sanxiyn wrote:
| I am pretty sure it exists, but not for you. "Select developers
| can access the PaLM API ... in Private Preview today, and stay
| tuned for our waitlist soon".
| tlogan wrote:
| This seems like pre-emptive announcement without any beef behind
| it (there is no even waiting list). I'm not 100% sure if this is
| a smart move.
| [deleted]
| debacle wrote:
| The question needs to be asked - is Google done competing?
| arijun wrote:
| They show an example of someone typing "I'm on it!" and then
| converting that into a page long email. They also show the
| ability to summarize, which of course you'd use on a page long
| email whose real content is nothing but "I'm on it."
|
| That verbose email is going to end up a weird machine interchange
| format (which only looks like formal writing for human
| consumption), just to send a message like "I'm on it."
| we_never_see_it wrote:
| Too little, too late. I am all-in on Microsoft.
| bogwog wrote:
| Don't let all the AI hype trick you into thinking you can trust
| Microsoft for anything.
| Simon321 wrote:
| Wow! Looks like they're determined to catch up!
|
| They're going to open up PaLM & an image generation model
| (imagen?) through Google Cloud. It looks incredibly easy to
| finetune PaLM in their environment:
|
| Video (Build, tune, and deploy foundation models with Vertex AI):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg2yHIKQ7oM
| bluelightning2k wrote:
| I don't know that catch-up is entirely fair.
|
| My understanding is that Google has always been ahead (at least
| until recently) - but the difference is that one of their
| competitors _ships_.
|
| OpenAI has a bias to action. DeepMind has a bias to grand-
| challenge stunts. Google has a bias to perpetual validation.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I think 'catch-up' is a fair description if Google
| Brain/Deepmind have until now shipped nothing and their
| competitors have shipped something.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| When you have nothing at stake, like openAI or bing, its
| easy to just throw things at the wall and see what sticks.
| There is nothing else on the wall you could potentially
| knock off.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I don't see why Google is in a materially different
| situation with AI than Microsoft is. It's not like anyone
| is suggesting that Google should have shut down their
| search in order to launch something like this, if it
| fails then it joins the long line of dead products.
| IanCal wrote:
| > Starting today, we're making an efficient model available in
| terms of size and capabilities,
|
| Excellent!
|
| _goes through the terrible UI of google cloud console_
|
| Nothing there. I see it's not actually today it's a sometime soon
| with some people in a private preview. Any info on what model
| size they're actually releasing?
|
| Time to try the demo they showed in google docs.
|
| > Now, we're excited to take the next step and bring a limited
| set of trusted testers
|
| Oh.
|
| It's good that they're actually planning to ship stuff, but
| _when_? I 've seen private previews sit around certainly for 6+
| months, probably a lot longer.
| topicseed wrote:
| Google needs to nail their launches better... We're all tired
| of Google Forms demos and access...
| IanCal wrote:
| It's quite something. I wish they'd just be more up front
| about it because then I'd probably be more excited. These
| changes are incredible, and it's a shame my general feeling
| is disappointment from trying and failing to use something.
|
| They do this all the time launching something in the US but
| not mentioning the limits leaving me struggling to get
| something to work.
|
| It doesn't help that their approach to ai is often "don't
| worry a magic thing will tell when you want it and will make
| it appear" and I don't know if I'm not making the right
| incantations or it's broken or it's not available.
|
| I wish these would all come with a "notify me when available"
| button at the very top.
| sf_rob wrote:
| I'm looking forward to seeing some of this make its way to
| general release, but I'd guess that this post is in the vein of
| their hurried initial press response to Chat GPT.
| gavi wrote:
| When they say Augment your dataset with synthetic data on
| https://developers.googleblog.com/2023/03/announcing-palm-ap...
| do they mean something like this
| https://github.com/yizhongw/self-instruct ?
| shtack wrote:
| Possibly this:
| https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230314005528/en/Gre...
| mabbo wrote:
| If I'm following this all here...
|
| We're going to have AI help us generate long pieces of text from
| very small blurbs of information.
|
| Then the reader is going to have AI read the long pieces of text,
| and condense it down into just small blurbs of information.
|
| Will my self-driving car also take unneeded detours through
| pretty places, making it take longer to get where I'm going?
| RobotToaster wrote:
| >Will my self-driving car also take unneeded detours through
| pretty places, making it take longer to get where I'm going?
|
| No, but it may take a detour through the local McDonalds drive
| through because they sponsor the self driving car company.
| Jack000 wrote:
| Malls are already designed in a labyrinthine way so you pass by
| as many stores as possible.
|
| Self driving cars might have set destinations that are cheaper
| to visit, or have free rides that are ad-supported, or
| recommend stops along your route.
| flangola7 wrote:
| All the while creating more CO2
| nicksrose7224 wrote:
| most (all?) self driving companies are electric. Cruise,
| Waymo, Tesla
| californical wrote:
| And how is that electricity generated in most of the
| US/world?
| tedajax wrote:
| Ah good, more terrible things to look forward to.
| yencabulator wrote:
| > Self driving cars might have set destinations that are
| cheaper to visit,
|
| I think you mean set destinations based on an auction of what
| business paid most for your visit, based on your demographics
| & ride history.
| IanCal wrote:
| It's more than that. The initial blurbs don't contain enough
| information, but with context you can make solid guesses about
| what should go in.
|
| So it's
|
| * small explanation
|
| * initial proposal of what you probably want
|
| * fixes and approval
|
| Not really any different than asking a person to do it for you.
|
| You don't tell your car/mapping software the exact route you
| want, you tell it where you want to go and then review the
| proposed plan, and that's with a very restricted setup (exact
| destination, limited routes).
|
| Edit
|
| More importantly, short messages that convey everything you
| want with the right tone are hard. Taking my mashed thoughts
| and converting them to easier to understand prose is a benefit
| even if it's longer.
|
| Just like a larger function can be better than a code-golfed
| one. It's longer but it doesn't take longer to read.
| usful wrote:
| > Will my self-driving car also take unneeded detours through
| pretty places, making it take longer to get where I'm going?
|
| I hope so, when you want it to. "Unneeded detours through
| pretty places" is a kind of being present in the world.
| avereveard wrote:
| > detours through pretty places
|
| heck I might like that service, if optional
| dagw wrote:
| _Will my self-driving car_
|
| I guess that depends if it's _your_ self-driving car or
| Google/Uber/Teslas self-driving car that they're letting you
| use. It might even be so that the physical car is yours, but
| the self-driving software is licensed and controlled by a third
| party.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| Google is also effectively giving up on Search if they are
| willing to help people generate more SEO spam at scale by
| directly providing AI text generation in Docs. OpenAI/Microsoft
| shook them up so hard that they are doing stuff that is most
| likely self-destructive long term
| Veen wrote:
| AI-generated SEO spam is here regardless of what Google does.
| But they don't also want everyone to stop using Google Docs
| because it lacks features that are definitely coming to
| Microsoft Word and every other competitor.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Presumably any other search engine will be just as badly hit
| as Google is, so this won't make people move away.
| pxtail wrote:
| Well, that google post probably was written with the help of AI
| and itself looks like it could benefit from keypoints
| extraction service, it's full of corporate mumbojumbo with
| occasional "Select developers can access", "stay tuned for our
| waitlist soon", "to testers in the coming weeks.", "more to
| come in the weeks and months ahead." In general, very low
| energy and conservative compared to bold MS moves
| scottyah wrote:
| At least somebody is trying to get it right before they ship
| generalizations wrote:
| Nah. They're just more scared of failure than they are
| motivated to capture the market.
| hs86 wrote:
| It looks like these AI features are going to add some padding
| to our messages, and the other end needs AI to undo it in order
| to save their sanity.
|
| Just look at the "I'm on it" example from their announcement
| video and what nonsense their AI makes out of it:
| https://youtu.be/6DaJVZBXETE?t=31
| seydor wrote:
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1631394688384270336
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I wonder if they will let the AI on the receiving end access
| the original text that the sender wrote to get better results.
| Presumably Google will store the pre-BS message.
| betteryet wrote:
| Prompting an AI for 5 seconds to write a bunch of paragraphs that
| your human counterpart has to then read and think through is
| incredibly disrespectful of their time.
|
| AI assistants that summarize and enrich information for you,
| fine. That actually saves time. But this feeding of generative
| output to humans is way off the mark. It feels like the product
| people are not sitting down to think what they're doing and just
| riding the GPT hype wave.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| But the recipient doesn't have to read and think through it,
| they can just have the same AI summarise the email. Google
| could even store the original prompt and use it as context for
| the summariser.
| virtuosarmo wrote:
| Notable this announcement drops two days ahead of Microsoft's
| announcement tied to enhancing M365 with gen-AI
| https://news.microsoft.com/reinventing-productivity/
| ec109685 wrote:
| How many recent startups are simply "build google docs but with
| AI [using other people's models]"? I can't see that being a long
| term path to success.
| aver4geredditor wrote:
| Also see https://developers.googleblog.com/2023/03/announcing-
| palm-ap...
|
| > Earlier today, we announced the PaLM API, a new developer
| offering that makes it easy and safe to experiment with Google's
| large language models. Alongside the API, we're releasing
| MakerSuite, a tool that lets developers start prototyping quickly
| and easily. We'll be making these tools available to select
| developers through a Private Preview, and stay tuned for our
| waitlist soon.
| rvz wrote:
| This is an extinction event for the low hanging fruit ideas for
| the so-called AI startups.
|
| Again, this maybe bad timing since GPT-4 will (probably) gate
| crash Google's announcements this week, hence why Google has done
| this today.
|
| But for now, AI copyrighters are going to be destroyed, quickly
| by the same tech giants: Microsoft (OpenAI), Google, and possibly
| Meta.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Speaking of copyright, remember that content produced by an
| algorithm cannot be copyrighted. We've already seen this play
| out with stable diffusion. Also, the government copyright
| office is surely unprepared for the coming tsunami.
| bioemerl wrote:
| > produced by an algorithm
|
| This is a very grey area. A prompt, for example, could be
| copyright. An image you create by drawing a base layer and
| having the AI fill the details in could be copyright as well.
|
| The government copyright office doesn't really decide these
| things. Courts do.
| topicseed wrote:
| This video published just now is incredible --
| https://youtu.be/6DaJVZBXETE
|
| Not sure though if it's mostly stuff that's being beta tested as
| we speak, or stuff that's not even built at all as of yet.
| jpollock wrote:
| I get way too much of these bulk-generated documents to read
| _now_. Making their generation more efficient is a bad thing,
| not a good thing.
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| This video probably had functionality representing 10% of the
| latest YC batch.
|
| Not mocking. This is a really hard space. You can start a whole
| company and build a product and overnight goog/msft/openai can
| tweak an existing product or API to make you obsolete. I'm sure
| some folks will figure out moats eventually... Always rooting
| for the upstarts over the incumbents.
| cloudking wrote:
| Yeah turns out launching a UI wrapper around a clever prompt
| doesn't give you much leverage against the big players.
|
| Seems like the opportunity is applying LLMs in the background
| to accomplish previously difficult tasks, as opposed to just
| building text generator tools.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Yeah but let's wait and see if it actually ends up being any
| good. Also, you could use a similar argument to say that
| Feedly has no reason to exist while Google Reader was better,
| but we all know how that ended.
| noduerme wrote:
| We're so fucked. Everyone will be AI spambots. You'll never
| know if you're talking to a human again.
| nyolfen wrote:
| just demand that they use a slur, this is the true voight-
| kampff
| topicseed wrote:
| Indeed, even with content... Somebody with ChatGPT and
| Grammarly can produce a humongous amount of content these
| days, and it will read really well to the average Joe.
| noduerme wrote:
| Ah, but the joke's on them, cause the average Joe doesn't
| read anymore.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| The video is very focused on first order effects. A middle
| manager automates all their work by writing a few sentences;
| they produce a "brief" by giving a one sentence input to the
| AI, doubtless imagining that other humans will carefully read
| their brief, quietly nodding to themselves and considering
| every sentence, with passing thoughts about how competent the
| middle manager is. In truth, the middle manager will soon be
| replaced by an AI, and the lovely looking briefs produced by
| the AI will only be consumed by other AIs.
|
| Another part shows the AI creating personalized marketing
| messages. For a brief time they will work, and then every
| company will be producing them by the millions, and then
| customers will stop reading emails at all -- again, the AIs
| will be writing messages consumed by other AIs.
| noduerme wrote:
| We're pretty close to outsourcing the customers' decision-
| making to AI already. Of course, when the customers all lose
| _their_ jobs, I 'm not sure who's going to be buying
| anything...
| gpderetta wrote:
| AIs of course.
| rch wrote:
| > For a brief time they will work
|
| The generated 'thank you for your leadership' message was
| amusing. If it's all fake, then what's the point?
| [deleted]
| agos wrote:
| is this going to be like Google Duplex, i.e. mostly forgotten,
| then unceremoniously shut down?
| eclipxe wrote:
| Google Duplex wasn't shut down. It still is a thing built
| into Google Assistant on Android.
| amf12 wrote:
| With a lot of Google projects, they are "killed" by
| integrating their features in other projects or merged.
| aabhay wrote:
| This is worse -- terrified, anxious make-work to appease
| insecure management with "apps" for AI
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| My view of the future has completely collapsed over the last
| 6mos-1year. I desperately don't want to live in a world where
| everything about everyone is fake and augmented. Where
| everything you look at and interact with is just AI generated
| or AI controlled.
|
| I can't see how AI isn't going to make the problem of falling
| social interaction 1000x worse.
| Sol- wrote:
| I can relate. Maybe the Amish got a point after all!
| gretch wrote:
| I promise you, it's not that dramatic.
|
| You can still walk down to the creamery and drink a
| milkshake. There are plenty of flesh and blood people there
| to talk to. The birds are chirping and it's a sunny day.
|
| There are some bad/weird stuff happening on parts of social
| media, but you can literally just turn off your phone and go
| outside.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Ooof, exactly as predicted a few days ago:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/03/google-dusts-off-the...
|
| Now every Google team needs to shoehorn "AI" into its products,
| no matter if it makes sense or not.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| It's worth comparing these to how a human would respond to the
| same request. "I'd like to write a job description" would get
| "okay, what will they be doing?" or something. Instead we just
| get a best attempt at making shit up.
| indymike wrote:
| It's interesting that the example for using an AI to write
| documents is a job description. It is uniquely suited to the AI
| because in real life, we've been copy-pasta-ing them for decades.
| It's also a place where there is some level of legal peril - a
| job description with material inaccuracies or discriminatory
| language creates lawsuits.
| solarmist wrote:
| I'll never even try it because I'm constantly waiting for the
| service cancellation announcement.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| You can ask it how long it has.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| It is either intentional or awfully coincidental that that Google
| would announce this two days before Microsoft's AI event:
| https://news.microsoft.com/reinventing-productivity/, which will
| probably discuss similar product features in Office 365.
| zamnos wrote:
| https://twitter.com/xlr8harder/status/1622849293571817472
|
| It's intentional.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-14 23:04 UTC)