[HN Gopher] Google I/O and the Coming AI Battles
___________________________________________________________________
Google I/O and the Coming AI Battles
Author : Amorymeltzer
Score : 181 points
Date : 2023-05-15 10:23 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stratechery.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (stratechery.com)
| wslh wrote:
| Courious question: how difficult and expensive is to train these
| models? Being the technology open source and assuming that we can
| collaborate on the training phase and have big open training
| sets, what will be the competitive advantage of companies such
| Google beyond the brand?
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| Training foundation models is very expensive. Easily a few
| million per model with no guarantee of success.
| wslh wrote:
| Again, we can assume a distribute training if that is
| feasible.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| Unfortunately, I don't think distributed training is
| feasible.
|
| My understanding is that these models are trained using
| some form of gradient descent. This requires knowledge of
| the model's prior state and current training error to
| adjust parameter values.
|
| With distributed training it's difficult, to point of
| impossible, to communicate the state of the model across
| large distances because these models are so large.
|
| Take my comment with a grain of salt because I'm not an
| expert in this area. I'd very much enjoy being wrong about
| this because distributed training would unlock so much
| potential.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| > what will be the competitive advantage of companies such
| Google beyond the brand?
|
| The advantage is that their AI will be integrated into products
| that already have billions of users. Android users will get
| used to the default google assistant model so theyre more
| likely to use it in other instances as well and so on.
| criddell wrote:
| Google scanned 25 million books. That has to help them at least
| a little.
| wslh wrote:
| But it is possible to crawl Internet in a distributed way.
| Also Wikipedia is a treasure.
| criddell wrote:
| That's all true, but everybody has access to that. None of
| that is scarce so the value is basically 0.
|
| You asked for advantages that Google has and the text of 25
| million books is one thing. A lot of the text is going to
| be scarce and so it's something of value Google has and
| others do not.
|
| Google also has built a massive GIS database from driving
| their cars around the world. Apple has a smaller database
| and there are some third parties (like ESRI) that will sell
| you access to their database. If you want to ask an AI
| something about your neighborhood, Google has more data
| than anybody on that front.
| [deleted]
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Courious question: how difficult and expensive is to train
| these models? Being the technology open source and assuming
| that we can collaborate on the training phase and have big open
| training sets, what will be the competitive advantage of
| companies such Google beyond the brand?
|
| Zero to none?
|
| I mean, it's much much _much_ easier for collaborators to
| produce better (or even competitive) map data than training
| LLMs, and yet the open alternatives to google maps are hardly
| ever used, have spotty data for some locations and have made no
| compelling feature for user 's to adopt.
| classified wrote:
| The author seems shocked by the demonstration of the difference
| between marketing and reality at Google.
| s1k3s wrote:
| Speaking of "AI Battles", the conversation I'd like to see more
| is about how these 2 giants are crushing entire industries in
| their search for higher stock prices. Far more interesting than
| Bard vs. ChatGPT imo.
| rvz wrote:
| It just means that lots of these new so-called AI startups using
| wrappers around AI APIs don't have a moat to go with since these
| new announcements by Google has effectively destroyed them for
| free or close to free.
|
| It is only going to accelerate and AI research will increasingly
| be more closed. There is now no difference between OpenAI.com or
| Google DeepMind.
|
| Either way it will have to take more than LLMs like 'ChatGPT' to
| even come close to dethroning Google. [0] There is more to 'AI'
| than the LLM chatbot hype.
|
| [0] https://www.similarweb.com/blog/insights/ai-news/chatgpt-
| gro...
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Google's problem is that if it wanted to not break its current
| business model it would need a chatbot that answers whatever the
| highest bidder desires.
|
| The fast pace of 'internet time' means Amazon, AOL, Facebook and
| Google can follow the trajectory of Ford, AMC, Chrysler, and GM
| in a fraction of the time. Amazon was a leader in e-commerce
| once, now they count on someone who subscribed to Prime for the
| last 15 years to subscribe for the next 15 years. Google search
| used to be good, but now it is corrupt. Search for a 'used Honda
| Fit' and the first search result is an ad from the one car dealer
| that owns all the new car dealerships in town for new cars and
| even though they presumably have used cars in their lot, they'll
| try to sell you the same CR-V they'd try to sell you in person.
| I'd accept any kind of ad from someone who is selling what i am
| buying but Google aids and abets numerous acts of brand
| destruction every day.
|
| They know how to walk the line of running a corrupt ads engine
| and not get anybody arrested but it is an unsolved problem in
| A.I. ethics to get away with running a corrupt chatbot --- and
| that is why Google is in so much trouble.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| To be honest... it actually would be entirely unsurprising and
| perfectly workable for Google to sell off the top AI answers.
| Something along the lines of
|
| Your query: "Google, show me the best place to eat in
| manhattan"
|
| "Bard's partners at Manhattan steakhouse are known for their
| delicious chargrilled steaks. Other options include..."
|
| Sure, Google won't do that today, but they didn't do ads at the
| top of search for a while... until they did.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Google promised never to blend the ads with the content back
| in the "don't be evil" days. Their first ad product was
| simple text ads that went on the side of the search results
| that maybe left some dollars on the table but actually kept
| the table open by looking squeaky clean legitimate.
|
| Google has a massive valuation because whenever Wall Street
| demands "M0R M0NEY!" they can just increase the ad load. The
| thing is they and their investors depend on every penny of ad
| revenue they get and any innovation that reduces it, even
| just a little bit, is an absolute disaster for them. That's
| why it is a 'disruptive' technology to Google.... It eats
| their lunch _right now_ and the possibility they might be
| able increase their ad load someday doesn't make up for
| losing it. I mean, shareholders can hit the SELL button and
| run in as much time as it takes me to write this sentence.
| twelve40 wrote:
| > Amazon was a leader in e-commerce once
|
| did i miss something and they are no longer half a trillion
| revenue top ecommerce company in the world? who did they get
| replaced by?
| tartuffe78 wrote:
| Yeah, it's the only place I know of where I can order from
| 1,000s of products and have them delivered the next day...
| PaulHoule wrote:
| You can find 1000 products listed on their web site but 999
| of the listings are bogus, fraud, or both.
|
| Items you can buy off the shelf at Target for $40 are for
| sale for $70 at AMZN.
|
| Some people get one day delivery, but other people (me) get
| five day delivery with Prime, particularly ZIP codes that
| _have an Amazon distribution facility in them_. (Everyone I
| know who gets 1 day delivery has a Cheesecake Factory in
| their town... But for Christ 's sake I order things _from
| Japan_ on Ebay and get them before I get things from the
| AMZN warehouse in the next state.) I guess they think I
| want to watch _Rings of Power_ so bad I 'll subscribe to
| Prime anyway but you know... I don't.
|
| My understanding is that the online store consistently
| loses money, they are a going concern only because of AWS.
| But guess what, I've already moved enough spend from AWS to
| Azure that subjecting me to 5 day delivery cost them much
| more than it saved.
|
| As for replacements, see every other retailer that sees
| fulfillment as a way to make a positive impression.
| Adorama, Best Buy, and Target just to name a few. It's true
| that many of those have bizzare limited product line ideas
| (e.g. Best Buy sells Sony camera bodies but has no real
| selection of lenses but they think I'm stupid enough to buy
| a Samsung washing machine which is not a good choice unless
| you want to buy another washing machine in a few weeks) but
| the product listings are basically honest outside AMZN.
|
| Long term see Temu and other asian retailers. When I look
| at arXiv I see a large literature in "sequential
| reccomendation" almost entirely by Chinese and Indian
| authors. Looks like a "missile gap" for e-commerce and
| social commerce if you ask me.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Google hasn't cared even slightly about how it has developed a
| reputation for cancelling projects, leading to developer mistrust
| of any new Google initiative.
|
| It's going to bite them when they need developers to embrace
| their ai ecosystem.
|
| Their CEO should have been fired years ago.
| fakedang wrote:
| Honestly, is it Pichai's fault for canceling the projects? Or
| is it Schmidt's fault for starting them, and for creating that
| short termism culture in the first place.
|
| It could be the case that Pichai is Immelt while Schmidt is the
| Google Jack Welch.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| The Google AI strategy is to use their weight and flood the
| market with everything AI so any competitor is either very niche
| and/or more expensive than "free".
|
| Typical big co move.
|
| Also the amount of tweets that suddenly popped up on Twitter with
| the same template of "ChatGPT is finished! Now that Bard has
| launched here 10 tips on how to..". It was clearly a Google
| marketing push ( scummy as always, but Google have done way worse
| in the past ).
|
| This leads me to believe that Bard is at best OK and has no "AI
| advantage" over other competitors and it's basically who has the
| bigger ranch and deeper pockets until everything is dead around
| them.
| andai wrote:
| Bard's advantage is integration with Google's "moat" which is
| the best search engine in the world.
|
| In all my tests so far, this integration fails. The Bing AI
| worked every time. (Can't believe I just wrote those words, but
| here we are...)
| j33zusjuice wrote:
| Bard is terrible, by comparison. ChatGPT feels like spontaneous
| answers. Google Bard will literally copy top search result
| answers to questions, and doesn't answer them relevantly. It's
| a bad extension of search.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| > has no "AI advantage" over other competitors
|
| Couldn't that be said about Google's advantage in search, and
| yet here we are?
| martythemaniak wrote:
| > It was clearly a Google marketing push ( scummy as always,
| but Google have done way worse in the past ).
|
| I don't think you understand engagement farming. The only
| objective these hustlers have is to gain more followers, and
| they will say anything about anything as long as it leads to
| them standing out in your TL and thus increasing their chance
| of a follow (and of course, eventually monetization)
|
| Last year they were opining about Web3. In December they were
| the ones screaming "Google is Finished", then that became
| generic so now there's a new angle. In 2 months it'll change
| again. Their words are completely meaningless and bare little
| relation to reality. The most important thing is to establish
| the poster as some kind of authority figure who always knows
| what's going on, so please follow them.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Dude, or ma'am, _thank you_ for mentioning these obviously-
| sponsored tweets.
|
| How do they guarantee hundreds or thousands of likes?
| Presumably the only reason the algorithm keeps showing them to
| me is that they're popular. Otherwise they'd be labeled
| "sponsored".
|
| The points are always so bad, too. I asked Bard to summarize
| one of my repos, and it hallucinated that it was an http server
| written in Go. My repo didn't have a single .go file.
| "Internet-connected AI" is just mistaken.
| trasz4 wrote:
| Twitter doesn't mark bot accounts as sponsored.
|
| As to how - many ways, some of them really creative. One that
| I remember was an account that's reposting stuff that I
| genuinely liked, some left-wing activist content, and only
| now and then they would push something different, like a
| message about how this one time brand X turned out to be crap
| during a manifa.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Most of the hype bots aren't labeled as bots. They are run
| covertly, and replaced when they get burned.
| throwwwaway69 wrote:
| They carefully flood their tweets with likes from bot farms
| and once there's a lot of inorganic activity it leads to a
| ton of visibility and therefore further organic activity
| jeroenvlek wrote:
| Had a similar experience. Asked Bard to generate a Firefox
| plugin and it responded that it was a text-based assistant
| and couldn't comply [1] whereas ChatGPT just did it. It
| didn't work, but it still generated it.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/jeroenvlek/status/1657195209686683648
| trasz4 wrote:
| >It didn't work, but it still generated it.
|
| So neither could generate the plugin, it's just that one of
| them lied about it.
| jeroenvlek wrote:
| No, I suspect it's more the case that ChatGPT could
| generate it anno 2021, but can't anymore due changes in
| Chromium (I switched to Edge ultimately) and the Gmail
| API and Google Cloud Credentials workflow that I tried to
| add to it later.
|
| It was interesting to see that ChatGPT annotated its code
| with pitfalls to avoid, that it actually didn't avoid in
| the code.
| trasz4 wrote:
| >No, I suspect it's more the case that ChatGPT could
| generate it anno 2021
|
| Why? I mean, why does it sound more plausible to you that
| it ever could, when we have countless examples of models
| lying (or rather hallucinating)?
| jeroenvlek wrote:
| Because it was trained on old documentation, but I see
| your point. My original point was also not necessarily
| that ChatGPT was correct, but that ChatGPT at least gave
| something to work with, whereas Bard simlly refused.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Just like a real human;)
| badrequest wrote:
| The company I work for is building a browser extension
| that involves ChatGPT, and we can unfortunately confirm
| that it is, in fact, not capable of writing browser
| extension code.
| processing wrote:
| _exploding head emoji_
|
| C&P "Google just updated its free competitor, Bard."
|
| C&P "ChatGPT has now a big problem"
|
| C&P "Here are 7 incredible things Bard can do (that ChatGPT
| cannot)"
|
| C&P "ChatGPT is in trouble"
|
| _exploding head emoji_
| nonfamous wrote:
| Also so telling that every Bard comparison is to ChatGPT,
| when the correct comparison would be with Bing.
| wfhBrian wrote:
| > ChatGPT is finished! Now that Bard has launched here 10 tips
| on how to..
|
| As if the spammy AI threads couldn't get worse, they managed to
| do it.
| skilled wrote:
| I noticed the same. "ChatGPT is old news, here are 10 ADVANCED
| prompts for Bard".
|
| The advanced prompt in question = "create a table from these 3
| numbers"
| MattRix wrote:
| The vast majority of tweets about ChatGPT are the same
| garbage. I think it's mostly due to Twitter giving too much
| weight to tweets and likes from "verified" users.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised that if you looked at the details on
| those tweets, it's the same few thousand dudes creating them
| and liking them and retweeting them.
| cloudking wrote:
| The worst part is the tweets themselves are probably
| generated
| pphysch wrote:
| > Also the amount of tweets that suddenly popped up on Twitter
| with the same template of "ChatGPT is finished! Now that Bard
| has launched here 10 tips on how to..". It was clearly a Google
| marketing push ( scummy as always, but Google have done way
| worse in the past ).
|
| There's clearly a Big Tech turf war going on over AI. All sides
| are slinging poop/propaganda. I've seen more hysterical and
| uninteresting anti-Google FUD than ever on this here Orange
| Site over the YTD. Special mention of the "world is literally
| ending because Google requested .zip TLD from ICANN" or pre-IO
| anti-hype "Google CEO earns as much as other highly-paid CEOs".
|
| Superfluous spam that I wish would be filtered, but often times
| it's produced specifically to get upvoted on HN, which is a
| dilemma for moderation.
| Ttaha1390 wrote:
| [flagged]
| renewiltord wrote:
| Lol, I posted "Google is BACK! MusicLM rules!" and no one paid
| me for that. I just think MusicLM is cool!
|
| Funny to think that somewhere out there I'm loaded into
| someone's consciousness as a pawn in the marketing machinery of
| The Alphabet.
| blululu wrote:
| This seems like attributing intent where there is none.
|
| AI hype guys on Twitter work pro bono. Nobody pays them they
| just shill whatever the latest thing is.
|
| Google has no central AI strategy because the company has weak
| leadership and is largely directionless.
|
| The distributed actions of a lot of people does not amount to
| any concerted plan.
| bigcat12345678 wrote:
| > Google has no central AI strategy because the company has
| weak leadership and is largely directionless.
|
| Evidence please?
| loudmax wrote:
| Absolutely this. Google could develop an AI that's superior
| to GPT-4. They may have already. Under their current
| leadership, it wouldn't make a difference anyway as they
| wouldn't know what to do with it. Google is on a fast track
| to becoming Xerox.
| anonylizard wrote:
| Its called Gemini. Google's own mega-multimodal model.
| Google merged google brain and deepmind to start developing
| Gemini. All the talent left at Google to go all in on this.
|
| The other AI products at google were just polishing up
| their old stuff to hastily release. Gemini is their real
| attempt at catching up to GPT-4.
| ineedasername wrote:
| So far I have found Bard to be significantly worse at
| some basic tasks. A simple request to give me the text of
| the opening scene of King Lear met with a badly comical
| rewrite in modern prose that got basic things wrong (all
| the daughters professed their love for their father a and
| received equal shares of land & dowry) I point out the
| inaccuracy and reinforced my request for the exact
| verbatim text. And then proceeded to give-- still-- a
| rewritten version albeit slightly closer to the true
| text. Bing and ChatGPT both complied on the first try.
|
| On the other hand, bard performed much better at a more
| complex task: I provided fake data spanning six years and
| a few rows of different categories. I left the sixth year
| blank. Without prompting it, reformatted the from comma
| do you limited into a nice table. It also gave a brief
| summarization and analysis of the trends. When I asked
| follow-up questions he gave detailed responses that were
| moderately insightful for anyone that would be familiar
| with the data domain given a few minutes to review the
| data set. Finally, I asked it to give a projection of
| what the values would be for the final column, which I
| had left blank. It did so, with an explanation of the
| trend it observed, as well as a description of the linear
| regression model. It used it and apologized for not being
| able to give more complex modeling due to the Small data
| set.
|
| GPT-4 provided answers and analysis that were comparable
| in quality, but required additional rounds of prompting
| and clarification.
| aix1 wrote:
| Just to disentangle this a bit, GP's post was about
| Gemini and you're responding about Bard. The two are
| different things. Gemini hasn't been trained yet; it's
| the next-gen thing that's currently being worked on
| (Pichai mentioned it at I/O).
|
| It obviously remains to be seen how good Gemini will be.
| I just wanted to clear up the apparent confusion.
| [deleted]
| zarkenfrood wrote:
| Google are taking the time to make sure that there is not
| much that comes back. With being the incumbent leader comes
| the greater risks of regulatory problems an reputational
| damage. OpenAI get something wrong is annoying Google do it
| and it damages the business much more significantly. They
| will attract regulator scrutiny far harder than other
| operators will.
| klibertp wrote:
| I guess that's also the reason why OpenAI is MS's in 49%
| and not 51%. Seems like a tried and true strategy.
| trasz4 wrote:
| >AI hype guys on Twitter work pro bono.
|
| Why do you assume not being explicitly paid by Google means
| not being part of Google's marketing strategy?
|
| Google's whole business model is getting people to do work
| for free ("produce content") by making them believe they are
| doing something else.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| I think they're getting paid. The tweets are all similar,
| down to the wording of the intro. It's unlike any organic
| AI trend on Twitter that I've seen, and it reeks of "we
| want you to mention these three things:" prompting from a
| Google-sponsored PR firm.
|
| I would've believed the first three were coincidence, but
| by the time I got to tweet number 4 I was already re-
| reading Submarine. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| brigadier132 wrote:
| > The tweets are all similar, down to the wording of the
| intro
|
| This is what happens when they are all using the same ab
| testing and title generation tech.
| trasz4 wrote:
| But I'm not saying they are not getting paid - I'm saying
| they are not getting paid by Google. They might be making
| money on sponsored links, or being part of some content
| farm. Barnacles aren't aware of how they are working for
| their whale.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| How can you be sure? I agree that's a possibility, but
| you seem certain. It seems more unlikely they're not
| getting paid.
| trasz4 wrote:
| Because when something is possible and the incentives are
| there, then it's either already happening, or will
| eventually happen.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Covert public opinion campaigns are incredibly common,
| especially on Twitter.
|
| Google has billions of dollars it doesn't know what to do
| with: they can certainly part with a tiny fraction of it and
| pay some PR firm to save face after the ChatGPT thing.
|
| What often happens is a few paid employees get the ball
| rolling and everyone else starts doing the hyping for free.
| fakedang wrote:
| > AI hype guys on Twitter work pro bono. Nobody pays them
| they just shill whatever the latest thing is.
|
| I thought this was the case, until I saw how identical all of
| the messages were, including the order of the bullet points.
| It was clearly some form of paid marketing - or fake
| accounts, except they all had blue ticks (not that that means
| much these days).
| sangnoir wrote:
| > I thought this was the case, until I saw how identical
| all of the messages were, including the order of the bullet
| points.
|
| This has always been the case for all corporate _fanbois_
| on Twitter. As an ancient example: there was a time when
| Steve Jobs proclaimed that 3.5 " screens were the perfect
| size, and 5.5"/6" phones were too big(!!). This was
| followed by suspiciously similar talking points
| recirculating in the "iPhone Twitter" echo-chamber[0]:
| including the same doctored image[1] that compared thumb-
| coverage of a 3.5' iPhone vs the Galaxy Note (IIRC). I
| don't think Apple was directly paying people to say those
| things: they simply confirmed their biases and they felt
| compelled to share the "truth".
|
| 0. Trended on Twitter, and even appeared on blogs written
| by Apple superfans like Marco Arment and Gruber
|
| 1. The phones were not to scale and the image was
| inaccurate in a way that was unfavorable towards the non-
| iPhone phablet.
| [deleted]
| tiniuclx wrote:
| > AI is zero marginal generation of information (well, nearly
| zero, relative to humans). As I wrote last year generative models
| unbundle idea creation from idea substantiation, which can then
| be duplicated and distributed at zero marginal cost.
|
| I find this quote a little bit hard to believe. Are the current
| models genuinely capable of innovation? I've been productive in
| using image generation for my album covers, but I haven't found a
| similar use for Large Language Models yet.
| chimen wrote:
| On a side note, we're experiencing the death of SEO I believe
| since content can't be trusted any more and knowledge, expertise
| and competence is available to everyone that can ask the proper
| questions.
| retskrad wrote:
| Google's brand is only bested by Apple in the minds of consumers.
| They will never go away. It doesn't matter if ChatGPT or anything
| else comes along - 95% of the billions of daily Google users will
| wait for Google's version. I am honestly surprised that the
| Alphabet market cap hasn't reached $2T yet.
| m0llusk wrote:
| Never is a really long time.
| silvestrov wrote:
| > They will never go away.
|
| History would say otherwise.
|
| Look at how quickly Nokia went south.
|
| Look at how quickly Google took over from the AltaVista search
| engine.
| denismenace wrote:
| The Nokia example makes much more sense in this case since it
| was an established company.
|
| On the other hand AltaVista was on the early days of the
| internet where everything was much more turbulent.
| fendy3002 wrote:
| Don't think that with GCP and play store it'll be as easy to
| replace Google though
| TexanFeller wrote:
| Compared to AWS, no one uses GCP. Compared to IOS App
| Store, Play Store doesn't sell any paid apps and
| subscriptions, only adware.
| kernal wrote:
| Google Play 2021 revenue was 48 Billion and 42 Billion in
| 2022. I suggest you google in the future. Also, I have an
| iPhone and it's filled with just as much adware, crapware
| and ridiculous subscription apps.
| spiralpolitik wrote:
| You don't have to replace them. You just need to reduce the
| income from search based ads by enough to cause them to
| implode.
|
| Hard to fund loss leaders like Android with say 20% less
| revenue.
| jsnell wrote:
| None of us know what the direct profitability of Android
| is. Given the revenue from Play Store, it at the very
| least is not obvious that it's a loss-leader.
|
| But one thing that _is_ obvious is that having 20% less
| revenue would not mean Google was unable to work on
| Android. We know that, because they were able to already
| fund Android in the distant past of 2021, when their
| revenue was 20% lower than now. (In fact, they were able
| to afford Android in 2010, with 90% lower revenue.)
| pyrale wrote:
| Really? To me, Google's image is much closer to that of
| Microsoft : You may hear of them in a few innovative projects,
| but most of what you know and use from them is boring office
| stuff, or personal stuff that you take for granted and don't
| think twice about. Having an Android or using Chrome isn't a
| personal statement like having an iphone or a macbook is.
|
| And in terms of ethics, the perception of them being a force
| for good eroded a lot. When thinking about the typical googler,
| people around here will sooner think about an exec trying to
| skip some tax than about a techie doing innovative stuff,
| because that's what their media coverage is about these days in
| Europe.
|
| I'll give you that Microsoft is very unlikely to go away
| either, unless the US govt finally remembers they have
| antitrust laws.
| alphabetting wrote:
| Youtube and Google are the top two highest favorability
| brands among gen Z
|
| https://archive.is/8Ippr
| trasz4 wrote:
| >Others in Gen Z's top 10 include M&M's, Walmart, Target,
| Doritos, KitKat, and Oreo.
|
| Makes one wonder if it's actually representative of the
| whole gen Z, or just some specific western subset.
| Thrymr wrote:
| It is based on a survey in the US, as stated in the
| article.
| hummer_embark wrote:
| Are age coherts like "gen z" relevant outside of a single
| country? I don't know if generations would line up world
| wide. Perhaps "baby boomers" would line up Europe wide
| becuase WWII ended at the same time for all of the
| continent.
| trasz4 wrote:
| Sure - there definitely are Zoomers in UK, but I doubt
| many of them would ever recognize Target or Walmart
| brands.
| oblio wrote:
| You're a techie (and/or business tech person).
|
| Go ask 10 non-tech people what they think of Google.
| pyrale wrote:
| Likely the same as they think about fb, microsoft, netflix,
| amazon-tech, uber, etc: employees are probably handsomely
| paid, and taxes probably aren't.
|
| Actually as a factoid, I recently changed jobs, and got
| handed an iphone for work. People noticed it and commented
| on it, whereas a pixel would probably have not raised much
| attention.
| kernal wrote:
| You mean the same people that use it as a verb? Which is
| the highest compliment you could give a product and is so
| rare that companies can only dream about it.
| [deleted]
| throwuxiytayq wrote:
| Waiting for a Google product to start working well (or to start
| respecting you as a user) isn't a strategy that gets you very
| far these days.
| 1980phipsi wrote:
| Google does annoy the shit out of me when using it behind a
| VPN. Constantly asking me to do Captchas. Never have that
| problem with bing or duckduckgo.
| siva7 wrote:
| Yeah, that's what Microsoft (Windows era), Xerox, Kodak, IBM
| (PC era) and so on also thought back then about their own
| "monopoly" and brand ;)
| munchler wrote:
| ChatGPT is the fastest growing application in history. It had
| 100 million monthly active users just two months after launch.
| No one is "waiting" for Google's version.
| samwillis wrote:
| > I am honestly surprised that the Alphabet market cap hasn't
| reached $2T yet.
|
| Because online advertising, particularly search ads, are
| working less well for advertisers and regulators are pushing
| for more changes. The vast majority of Google revenue comes
| from an industry that is facing massive risks.
|
| On top of that I don't think it's clear that "AI" in search
| will help Google sell advertising or increase revenue. It's
| also likely to bring them under even more scrutiny from
| regulators.
|
| In many ways AI is harder to sell ads against, Google is payed
| when people leave the page via a click on an ad. That doesn't
| happen when Google is summarising the content. Microsoft/Bing
| have found a brilliant way to attack Google, build a product
| that they have to copy that (potentially) decimates ad revenue.
| pyrale wrote:
| > Microsoft/Bing have found a brilliant way to attack Google,
| build a product that they have to copy that (potentially)
| decimates ad revenue.
|
| Didn't 0-click search as a trend for google search predate
| bing's changes?
| trasz4 wrote:
| >Google is payed when people leave the page via a click on an
| ad
|
| Not really. The click rate is iirc usually around 5%; I'm not
| convinced this is much higher than the "noise floor"
| generated by a human equivalent of drunk racoons. So in
| practice Google is being paid for displays.
| v4dok wrote:
| Google is an advertising business. Can you sell more ads with
| AI? I would say no. And even if you can, having an automated
| smart assistant being able to "cut" through the BS is certainly
| not as good for Google as clicking a bunch of sites trying to
| battle SEO.
|
| However the judge is still out in regards to how much can AI
| allow Google to squeeze the profit margins of businesses by
| offering even better conversion rates. Personally, I don't
| think it will make a big difference, the AI will not make you
| buy more. I suspect Google makes more money by having multiple
| companies fight for the same customer than actually making a
| conversion.
|
| IMO best case scenario for Google is to keep their search
| market. Table stakes is keeping search relevant at all.
| tscherno wrote:
| Can't they massively improve their ad-targeting by analyzing
| conversations with the AI?
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| People are already freaked out plenty by the idea that
| googles products spies on you to sell ads. To start doing
| it outright will definitely kill uptake of any AI service
| they provide.
| fendy3002 wrote:
| I wonder, does the general populace really freak out of
| it, since everyone I've known don't really do
| trasz4 wrote:
| >People are already freaked out plenty by the idea that
| googles products spies on you to sell ads.
|
| The inverse is true - people continue using Google
| products despite being aware that they are spying on
| them. Doing it outright won't make them suddenly start
| caring.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Tech companies have been running all your data through AI
| for years now to show you targeted ads.
|
| It's what the whole house of cards is built on.
| oblio wrote:
| > Google is an advertising business. Can you sell more ads
| with AI? I would say no.
|
| Oh, you optimist!
|
| It's ALWAYS about incentives. Aka money.
|
| Companies will use AI to squeeze garbage (aka ads) in every
| nook and cranny of the observable universe now. Think of all
| the thankless tasks that required a human to do them until
| now.
|
| Guess what? Now that AI can do them 100000x faster and
| probably 2-5x better.
|
| Our lives are about to be flooded by a stream of -pardon my
| French-, adshit.
| v4dok wrote:
| I don't see how my life could me MORE cluttered with adshit
| than now. Literally everything is an ad space. And I have
| to navigate into a lot of it to actually find something
| useful.
| nemothekid wrote:
| This post is a culmination of a trend I'm been seeing where
| LLMs are made synonymous with AGI. AFAIK you can't use an
| LLM to drive a car.
|
| In the context of this thread, I don't think Google could
| sell more ads with an LLM which is why they sat on this
| technology. It disrupts their current business, while being
| more expensive and harder to monetize (charging a
| subscription to consumer is worse than a monopolized ad
| business charging hundreds of millions to corporations).
| mtrovo wrote:
| Wouldn't this help google on second order effects tho? I
| guess having an AI summarizing the web would lead to less
| incentive to create the type of SEO junk that made searching
| in Google so awful in the past years.
|
| Also for queries asking for product recommendation, where ad
| price is quite high, they could still plug ads into an LLM
| and have it write a summary back to you similar to what
| magazines do with sponsored content.
| trasz4 wrote:
| >I guess having an AI summarizing the web would lead to
| less incentive to create the type of SEO junk that made
| searching in Google so awful in the past years.
|
| Main part of Google's business is selling infrastructure
| for that SEO junk, AdWords et al. Sure, you meant the
| _other_ SEO junk, but from AI point of view both would be
| noise to be separated from actual content.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| > Can you sell more ads with AI
|
| Companies like Google and Meta have been relying on AI to
| display ads for years now. It's been central to their
| strategy.
|
| ChatGPT was just a shiny toy. A very cool, shiny toy, but a
| toy nonetheless.
| siva7 wrote:
| I wouldn't call something a toy that has shown the most
| impressive growth rate for a commercial product since the
| invention of the internet.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| To be more than a toy it needs to be profitable and have
| a moat.
|
| OpenAI just implemented something (well) that was
| developed in other places.
|
| LLMs are indeed very cool and maybe even revolutionary,
| but their main accomplishment was beating big tech to the
| punch.
| mprovost wrote:
| Kodak invented the digital camera. Being first doesn't
| mean much. New competitors don't have anything inside the
| moat (their existing business) to protect and can move
| faster.
| [deleted]
| v4dok wrote:
| They didn't beat them because they are faster. They beat
| them because it was something big tech did not want to
| happen. The space you have for ads is severely limited
| and the fact that no moat exists means that you will need
| alternative ways to fund it (or skyrocket the ad costs).
|
| I suspect that those who don't care about privacy or
| can't afford to pay, will be swarmed with AI-seo results
| from an ad-supported model, but people will FINALLLY have
| the choice to pay and avoid this ad-fest. And who knows,
| maybe when open-source catches up, it will even be
| affordable enough that ad-tech will shrink considerably.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| > They beat them because it was something big tech did
| not want to happen
|
| Yep. Google didn't want a chatbot telling kids how to
| cook meth, so they weren't in a hurry to release.
| Meanwhile, releasing a chatbot is one of the few cards a
| much smaller company like OpenAI can play.
| v4dok wrote:
| I dont know if you are sarcastic, but the solution to
| kids cooking meth is not hiding the recipe. Hiding
| knowledge is a sign of a problematic society, not "God's
| work"
| asdfman123 wrote:
| This is mostly unrelated to the chatbot conversation, but
| hiding sensitive things from children is basic parenting
| as practiced in all cultures everywhere. The only
| difference is not everyone agrees on what's sensitive
| content.
| iKevinShah wrote:
| Can you sell more ads with AI?
|
| 100% Yes. We can (because people are going to ask how to do X
| in postgres and AI can reply how to do that in postgres with
| a side-note that this Sponsored product does it out of the
| box). however, can you sell more ads (by tagging them as
| "ads" or "Sponsored") - That is where the gray area shows up
| (IMO).
|
| Obviously, this is still evolving but I guess something along
| that lines could be done, if one is too serious to monetize
| it. In my personal opinion, I think right now companies are
| focussed around capturing market than monetization.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Any chatbot that has ads integrated into the responses will
| face an uphill battle against competing products that
| simply have banner style ads.
| v4dok wrote:
| I don't think so. Google had Lambda for quite some time
| internally. If it was a slum dunk on selling more ads, it
| would have been out way before chatgpt.
|
| Google has maximized their ad revenue with their current
| model. You don't have the same ad real estate in your
| example and that is a problem. Now they get money for
| impressions on a whole page, and clicks from people trying
| to find the right fit among the seo. I believe that google
| wants information filtering but not too much as it needs
| current estate for ads.
| pawelmurias wrote:
| To me building the automated smart assistant seems like
| insanely lucrative place to put in ads. When you order the
| assistant to solve a problem or buy some product google can
| show you something even better or a things that solve the
| issue.
| deltree7 wrote:
| [dead]
| EduardoBautista wrote:
| Some of Google's success comes from being "free". It's not
| necessarily because consumers believe Google has the best
| services/products.
|
| It's hard for a software company to compete against the largest
| ad network ever created.
| chpatrick wrote:
| That's what we thought about Google Plus.
|
| What's the last time Google launched a product that everyone
| really uses?
| endisneigh wrote:
| when's the last time any company has launched a product
| everyone really uses? for the sake of conversation let's say
| 2 billion+ for everyone.
| raincole wrote:
| In 2021 there were "only" one billion iPhone users[1]. By
| the time, Apple was the most valuable company in the world,
| and it still is today. So I'll say 2B is a very arbitrary
| and unrealistic number.
|
| [1]: https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/27/there-
| are-1b-ipho...
| endisneigh wrote:
| the parent said "everyone". there are about 5 billion
| people over 20. 2 billion is quite conservative.
|
| as for your link. iphones are popular, but it's
| definitely not true that "everyone" has an iphone, which
| is my point. android has almost 4 billion active users,
| for comparison.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| TikTok is probably closest, but I don't think they've hit
| 2bn yet.
| chpatrick wrote:
| I think 2 billion is an arbitrary number but I'm thinking
| of Search, Maps, Gmail, Google Docs. All of those are
| ancient.
| iTokio wrote:
| ChatGPT
| oittaa wrote:
| Not even close to 2B users. Google have probably 10
| different products with more than 2B monthly users.
| raincole wrote:
| It's very hard to believe. Besides search, Android,
| Chrome and Gmail are in 2B~4B range. Are there really
| another _6_ products that are ubiquitous as these 3?
| Google Docs definitely doesn 't have 2B monthly users.
| Some built-in Android apps might be installed on >2B
| phones, but it doesn't mean they have that many active
| users.
| avrionov wrote:
| Google Search, Android, Chrome, Gmail, Google Play Store,
| and YouTube
|
| Also Google Maps, Google Photos and Google Drive have
| more than 1B users.
| rpdillon wrote:
| The article mentions they have six products with 2
| billion users.
| gniv wrote:
| Instagram? (launched 12 years ago)
| braymundo wrote:
| TikTok is the closest I can think of.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| Its because unlike Microsoft and Apple. Google has no real
| presence in China which keeps it out of one of the world's
| largest and fast growing economies
| nixcraft wrote:
| I am curious if there will be a requirement in the future,
| possibly enforced by the EU or US law, for content such as books,
| videos, music, PDF files, news articles, or blog posts to be
| labeled as produced by either a human author or AI. I'm talking
| about ethical disclosure. While it is uncertain, it is important
| to be transparent about the content's origins. As we know, AI is
| here to stay, and it is likely that governments will be the
| biggest investors (or spenders) in AI technology for military
| purposes.
|
| Despite Bing having a head start, it's unlikely that Google will
| lose to AI battle to Bing and others. Google's strong brand image
| and popular properties, such as Gmail, YouTube, Search, Chrome,
| and Android, used by billions of users daily, give them a
| significant advantage. It's doubtful that Bing will take over the
| search market anytime soon. But, who knows? Ha!
| [deleted]
| ipsum2 wrote:
| It's not clear where to draw the line on what is AI or not, and
| I suspect most content will be at least partially generated by
| AI. Is spell-checking AI? grammar-checking? Rewriting sentences
| for clarity? Summarization?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Or, following editing suggestions your text editor/word
| processor gives you? Or, on the artistic side, automatic
| cutout/background removal? Content-aware fill?
| MildlySerious wrote:
| I believe that would just be fighting losing battles on a front
| that doesn't matter.
|
| Content mills existed long before AI. Clickbait existed long
| before AI. Fake news and misinformation existed long before AI.
|
| AI will empower things like that, but it isn't at the core of
| the problem.
|
| As a user, I care that content is truthful, useful, and/or
| entertaining. I care that it isn't presented in a misleading
| way, and I care that it doesn't cause harm (hate,
| misinformation, etc.) - What I don't care about is who or what
| created it.
|
| I think a bigger step in the right direction for society would
| be to empower certain groups like journalists in ways that they
| don't have to compete with all the crap out there.
| xyproto wrote:
| I think clear visions, good taste, thorough fact-checking,
| clever prompt engineering and proper AI-result curation will
| all become more important in the years ahead.
| nachteilig wrote:
| Maybe the publishing company can train an AI on GRR Martin's
| work and we'll get the final books from an AI ghostwrite,
| labeled or not
| fakedang wrote:
| Considering season 8 was apparently Martin's idea to test the
| waters, I think the AI will do a much better job than him.
| ljlolel wrote:
| It could backfire like the Made in China labels and all that
| did is advertise China as a manufacturing hub and leader and
| project it's totality and power
| merek wrote:
| IMO this sounds infeasible, since AI human generated content
| exists on continuum. At one end is content 100% written by a
| human, at the other end is 100% AI written content. How do we
| label everything in between? For example, AI written content
| that was tweaked by a human? Or human written content with some
| sentences written by AI?
|
| Furthermore, it seems unenforceable. As AI becomes more
| sophisticated (if this isn't the case already), it will be
| virtually impossible to prove mislabelling.
| Tyr42 wrote:
| Does using a smart spell check count? The new grammer checks
| might be AI powered.
|
| Where is the line?
| judge2020 wrote:
| For reference, Gmail and docs 100% use generative ai[0]:
| "As language understanding models use billions of common
| phrases and sentences to automatically learn about the
| world, they can also reflect human cognitive biases"
|
| 0: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/9116836?hl=en&co=
| GENI...
| igetspam wrote:
| This.
|
| I have written a number of documents recently that are AI
| assisted but definitely my own work. I use the LLM to help me
| cross reference topics, clean up some of the language,
| improve the flow and prepare for the potential follow-up
| discussions but the arguments and recommendations are still
| mine. Is this AI or not?
|
| Side note: I just prepared a recommendation for an org change
| and had the AI argue against it, as well as provide
| responses. Some were good and some were weak but it was
| extremely useful and quite fun.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Yesterday I sent out an invite for a family event we're
| organizing.
|
| This time, I figured I'll use GPT-4 to help me write the
| perfect text. I described the details of the event, my
| relationship to the invitee (inb4: without any kind of PII,
| of course), the style, tone and context of the desired
| text, and asked GPT-4 to generate suggestions. I went back
| and forth with it, asking it to generate more variants of a
| specific suggestions, then taught it a simple markup for
| editing and asked to iterate on specific words and
| sentences, until I was somewhat satisfied with the result.
|
| Then I asked my wife for her idea, and she quickly wrote a
| little text of her own. Only afterwards, I showed her the
| best (to me) of GPT-4 texts. We then mixed the sentences
| from both together, creating a final work that's 50% OG,
| perfectly clean text written by my wife, and 50% the output
| of GPT-4 (with me guiding it).
|
| Is that text a work of AI? Or of a human? Or both? Is it
| even 50% AI and 50% human, given that the AI part were
| created from my input, and then edited by my telling GPT-4
| what to change, and then finally approved by me using my
| own judgement?
|
| Does a random website sharing invitation templates on-line
| have a copyright case, if a couple sentences from our text
| matched something of theirs? What if it wasn't the AI part
| that matched?
| samwillis wrote:
| Just as with labelling for Vegan and Vegitarian food, "Fair
| Trade" or Organic, there is going to be similar movements in
| the creative arts for "AI Free" content.
|
| So no, I don't believe there will be regulation on labelling
| "AI" derived content, but there will be a drive to label and
| certify "organic content".
| zirgs wrote:
| Cool, then I will know what to avoid.
|
| People who boast that their company is <insert identity here>
| owned do that, because their product can't compete otherwise.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| An interesting thought. Though it's not a binary property. I'm
| also not sure how many people care how the sausage is made. I
| don't.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| The example of the new EU regulation in the article is a great
| example of how regulation typically only serves to enable
| regulatory capture, thereby playing into the same goals of
| creating a monopoly or duopoly that governments otherwise say
| they're opposed to.
| nocoiner wrote:
| Regulation "typically only" serves the interests of incumbents?
| Surely that's an overstatement, no? Personally I tend to think
| that the inability to move fast and break things is a good
| thing when it comes to, say, air travel or food safety.
| Seeemi wrote:
| Ah yes the USB regulation which did nothing for the consumers.
|
| And the safety regulations which made our products less toxic
| and less shoking
| oblio wrote:
| Plus the 40 hour workweek, 2 day weekends, healthcare (not in
| the US, outlier among developed countries), pensions, equal
| rights acts, ...
|
| Or in the EU, roaming charges removal, flight reimbursement
| regulations, etc.
|
| Heck, speaking of flying, the entire airline industry is
| regulated up the wazoo and a few years ago we had a full year
| of metal coffins flying through the skies at 10 000m going
| 950 kmph without any fatalities.
| pavlov wrote:
| This is a popular talking point but it feels ahistorical to me.
| Was Ralph Nader really working for General Motors all along
| when he called for more regulation?
| oblio wrote:
| > Was Ralph Nader really working for General Motors all along
| when he called for more regulation?
|
| You don't get it! Only big companies can make safe cars
| cheaply, so it was all a big ploy against small car
| manufacturers.
|
| I'm being sarcastic in case someone missed it :-)
| dahwolf wrote:
| Google is going to be just fine. The most important slide in the
| article is that Google has 6(!) 2B+ user products. Even if
| slightly behind in capability, they have superior reach. They'll
| deeply integrate AI into every part of that stack and this way
| put it into people's hands. They also have the data,
| infrastructure, people and capital to make it work.
|
| Microsoft has little consumer push (no mobile presence) hence
| they will likely dominate in the business market. Integrating it
| into Office, private training on company data, etc.
|
| Apple is the big mystery. Supposedly the big consumer-facing
| competitor to Google but very little is known about what's coming
| from them. Honestly, I'm quite convinced they're in panic mode as
| well, they just hide it better.
| spiralpolitik wrote:
| Google right now are Netscape in 1997. They see AI in the rear
| view mirror. They think it's going to eat their primary revenue
| stream. The question is are they going to keep staring in the
| rear view mirror and go over the cliff or can they reinvent
| themselves?
|
| Given that Google still gets the vast majority of its revenue
| from search its hard to see that this doesn't cause then a huge
| amount of pain. I suspect they've made the mistake of not
| starting to cannibalize their revenue stream and now it might be
| too late.
|
| It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
| anonyfox wrote:
| I think the main battle for google will be that corpus poisoning
| might be the new SEO - wait for it!
| pphysch wrote:
| What differentiates second-degree corpus poisoning from first-
| degree advertising?
| andrewstuart wrote:
| If the eu makes those laws then it will exclude itself from all
| ai development, push ai to other countries, and lead to an ai
| brain drain.
|
| I do think all government should require AI to disclose all the
| material ingested.
| flagrant_taco wrote:
| [flagged]
| Sai_ wrote:
| I read through the full article and the cognitive leaps the
| author makes are too big for me to follow.
|
| It's like listening to a mad scientist connect totally unrelated
| (seemingly) events.
|
| E.g., I don't at all understand the linkage between current
| events and the schism between the Catholic Church and Protestants
| denoms.
|
| Maybe I'm just too dumb to follow this much brilliance.
| EGreg wrote:
| Use ChatGPT to make sense of it. In future idiocracy we all
| will
| mikhasev wrote:
| Sad but true.
| trasz4 wrote:
| >It's like listening to a mad scientist connect totally
| unrelated (seemingly) events.
|
| Why a mad scientist and not a mad junkie? Or just some clueless
| language model, artificial or not? I think we tend to make this
| assumption that things that seem complicated _are_ complicated,
| and not just random bs, and that assumption no longer holds.
|
| >E.g., I don't at all understand the linkage between current
| events and the schism between the Catholic Church and
| Protestants denoms.
|
| Hadn't read it, but let me guess, is it about how Gutenberg
| changed the society's interconnection fabric, and it triggered
| Thirty Year's War, and the same fabric remodeling thing is
| happening right now? :)
| Sai_ wrote:
| > Hadn't read it, but let me guess, is it about how Gutenberg
| changed the society's interconnection fabric, and it
| triggered Thirty Year's War, and the same fabric remodeling
| thing is happening right now? :)
|
| Yes, there is some reference to the evolution of the
| principle of national sovereignty which came from the
| disruption of the Catholic Church and how that ties to Europe
| trying to regulate AI advances coming out of America.
|
| Like you said, he could just as well be an organic LLM.
| trasz4 wrote:
| >Europe trying to regulate AI advances coming out of
| America.
|
| That's just an attempt to prevent technical colonisation.
| An analogy would be Japan and China trying to fence off
| missionaries. Protestantism was about something different:
| decentralisation. And in that regard there's no difference
| between Google and their competitors - it's all strictly
| centralised; nothing Protestant about it.
|
| Having properly Open Source models would be protestant. And
| EU regulations should help it happen by reducing the
| incentives for centralised ones.
| ftxbro wrote:
| > E.g., I don't at all understand the linkage between current
| events and the schism between the Catholic Church and
| Protestants denoms.
|
| His point is that LLMs are a disruptive technology at the level
| of the printing press. The power structure most famously
| disrupted by the printing press was that of the Catholic
| Church.
|
| EDIT: Yeah this isn't what he's saying. His analogy is more
| like the major LLM companies like OpenAI or Google are like the
| Catholic Church which is being disrupted by European
| regulations which are like the protestants. Or the opposite. He
| literally says both ways as possibilities. And in this analogy
| the open models (the refinements of the 'leaked' LLaMa models
| which can fit on a single GPU) are like the wacky persecuted
| fringe sects which were exiled to the United States and which
| he thinks shouldn't be called as either Catholic or Protestant.
| At the end he says "This is, admittedly, a rather speculative
| and far-reaching Article" which I have to agree.
| Sai_ wrote:
| That's what I thought too but I went and reread that part.
| He's saying something else.
|
| The American companies like Google/OpenAI (trying to export
| AI globally) are on one side, opposing them are Europeans
| (who want AI to be controlled, licensed, and regulated).
| Together, these two regimes are the Catholic Church and
| mainstream Protestantism of AI.
|
| Opposing both these sides are open source AI models. He calls
| this group radical reformers like the Amish.
|
| Yeah, don't ask. This much brilliance in way above my pay
| grade.
| ftxbro wrote:
| He says "This is where history is interesting to consider,
| particularly the invention that I have long held is most
| analogous to the Internet: the printing press." Maybe his
| main metaphor for disruption is the printing press and he
| already used it for talking about the internet. Now there
| is a new disruptive thing, so he has to make his metaphor
| more complicated if he doesn't want to look like he's
| repeating himself.
| [deleted]
| laserlight wrote:
| > I read through the full article and the cognitive leaps the
| author makes are too big for me to follow.
|
| Very typical of the author. Except few valuable ideas presented
| years ago, I haven't read or heard anything worthwhile. Mostly
| unsubstantiated speculation and "I've seen the big picture"
| type of ramblings.
| Sai_ wrote:
| Yeah, back in the day, I remember being impressed by one such
| insightful article shared on HN but the others were almost
| always "wtf is he saying?"
| trimbo wrote:
| Many of his recent articles are structured around quoting
| himself from prior articles.
| mFixman wrote:
| From my experiences with Google integrated AI, I'm skeptical that
| Google can win any battle with it.
|
| ChatGPT and other modern AI tools are useful specifically because
| they do what I want when I want to do it. Compare this to Gmail's
| smart compose: by the time the AI makes a suggestion I'm already
| half-way through typing that text, so its prediction is
| completely useless even if it's correct.
|
| (Also, I really enjoy the random historical rambling at the end
| of some Stratechery articles).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-15 23:02 UTC)