[HN Gopher] Google's two-year frenzy to catch up with OpenAI
___________________________________________________________________
Google's two-year frenzy to catch up with OpenAI
Author : totaldude87
Score : 141 points
Date : 2025-03-21 15:44 UTC (5 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| uejfiweun wrote:
| Google screwed up so massively in this whole AI race. It blows my
| mind that they had the technology available internally years
| before OpenAI released ChatGPT but didn't do anything with it and
| in fact lost top talent due to their hesitation to release it (as
| the article states about Noam Shazeer). And now, for basically
| every non-techie person, ChatGPT is synonymous with AI in the
| same way that Google was synonymous with search. What a disaster.
| Quite frankly shocked that their executive team is still in
| place.
| DSingularity wrote:
| Maybe this "screw up" delayed LLMs by years and gave them more
| years to milk the cow.
| empiko wrote:
| To be honest there were several chatbots before ChatGPT, eg
| Galactica by Microsoft, and it had not seem so promising.
| Similarly, ChatGPT was originally released as more or less a
| fun little demo, and the absolute success was surprise for
| OpenAI as well .
|
| They probably managed to hit certain UX threshold where people
| start to find the chatting valuable/interesting, but this was
| really an accidental discovery.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| Sometimes virality is a total fluke of the moment. For
| instance Zoom happened to be what teachers told each other
| about when lockdowns started.
|
| That could have been webx or meet or whatever.
| benatkin wrote:
| Guess they didn't need _that_ top talent in the long run, they
| had plenty of their own top talent
|
| https://polymarket.com/event/which-company-has-best-ai-model...
| cratermoon wrote:
| Deepseek showed us that the easiest way to catch up with OpenAI
| is.. <checks notes> hiring programmers who know what they are
| doing.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Right, because Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and X all don't
| have anyone who knows what they are doing - and also none of
| them had the bright idea to hire anyone who knows what they are
| doing either...
|
| I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not that reductive.
| alecco wrote:
| I think he missed adding: and let them do their job and be
| smart managing the resources by themselves.
|
| Pichai & co put a borderline-communist quota system and it
| became a popularity contest to get a tiny slice extra of
| compute. And then OpenAI ate their lunch (Google tech).
| MostlyStable wrote:
| I still think that Deepseek was mostly dramatically overblown.
| It was 6-9 months behind the performance of the best frontier
| models at a dramatically lower cost.....but dramatically lower
| costs 6-9 months behind is basically what has been happening
| for a couple of years.
|
| I'm mostly convinced that the only reason that it blew up was
| that it was the first _Chinese_ model that was even in the same
| ballpark as the American frontier models, which drove a lot of
| reporting, which caused a lot of normies that hadn 't tried any
| AI model since CHatGPT very first blew up to try it and they
| were (understandably) blown away by the progress relative to
| what they remembered from 2 years previously.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| The timing seems to indicate that the mainstream press
| publicity over DeepSeek R1 was due to an NVidia short
| recommendation that had just gone viral, not about the
| disclosed cost (which related to V3, not R1).
|
| However, there also seems to have been some genuine panic at
| OpenAI, maybe elsewhere too, over DeepSeek R1 since not only
| did they come close to matching the performance of o1, but
| they also described exactly how they did it (apparently very
| similar to what OpenAI had done, judging from the reaction),
| and therefore killed any competitive lead that OpenAI - who
| had been working on it for a long time - may have thought
| they had.
| mitchbob wrote:
| https://archive.ph/NQqCj
| adaptbrian wrote:
| We need more ai overviews because look at all the likes! ......
| (word to the wise it's a simple link traffic siphon on
| advertisers)
|
| Kent W. said to hurry up, hmm I could only wonder why, what could
| he possibly see on the legal horizon.
| dsabanin wrote:
| I was skeptical at first, but I think Google's catch up game with
| OpenAI has been going pretty well so far. Gemini 2.0 Pro and
| Flash models are really nice. Deep research feature is done
| really well. Context window is still the best in the industry.
| Integration with search, gmail, google office suite, google meet,
| android, etc.
|
| They finally have good enough models that lets them leverage
| their existing portfolio of products, their cloud infrastructure
| and how embedded they are in the modern work life.
|
| Plus, unlike Apple, they are not as restricted in their access to
| the training data, because of their much less principled privacy
| stance.
| donny2018 wrote:
| Technologically they may have caught up, but market wise they
| may have lost forever. In my country (and I think in many
| others), ChatGPT is already a household name, and nobody has
| even heard about Gemini.
|
| This looks like the Google+ vs Facebook story all over again.
| mprev wrote:
| Isn't this more like Teams vs Slack or Zoom?
|
| Consumer brand recognition isn't the issue. Bundling with
| Workspace might be.
| j_maffe wrote:
| Chatbots are not social media platforms. Also the vast
| majority of expected revenue from this industry is not from
| casual paying users, it's from other companies who will
| optimize for performance and price.
| riku_iki wrote:
| Chatbots are clear replacement for search with all
| implications and huge revenue for winner.
| nukem222 wrote:
| How do you figure? Chatbots don't cite their sources
| (unless you explicitly set up an RAG); search engines do.
| What value does the former have?
|
| Chatbots seem more useful for stuff like generating
| filler and changing tone.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| Right. A few years from now these will all have figured
| out insidious ad insertion techniques and the economics
| will be very different.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| That makes Google and Microsoft the winners then. It's not
| out yet but once Microsoft manages to fully catch to the
| state of the art in LLM, OpenAI wo't be needed and that
| will definitely be the final nail in the coffin for them
| stormfather wrote:
| But Google is _the_ household name. All they have to do is
| bring Gemini inside Google before people stop using
| traditional search.
| browningstreet wrote:
| They had that. Gemini was inside the Google app. Now it's
| its own app. So not sure how their thinking aligns with
| your suggestion.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Too bad Google managed to burn almost all goodwill they had
| 20 years ago. I am amoung many people who would use their
| AI products only as the _last resort,_ just like I do with
| search and browsers.
| coliveira wrote:
| And this is correct, because if Google takes over AI, it
| will kill it just like they're killing search results.
| For Google, selling ads is THE most important thing, so
| they will relegate AI results to a little corner of the
| page where no-one will care about.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I have a colleague who is still pissed off about Google
| Reader. Nobody cares. The happy days of fun times with
| Google Labs in 2005 are the equivalent of my dad missing
| his 1965 Firebird when I was high school. 60% of the
| audience here doesn't even know what you're talking
| about.
|
| If you're doing serious work in a fast mover space and
| are refusing to understand a major player, you're putting
| yourself at a disadvantage.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| From my experience people use "ChatGPT" to refer to LLMs in
| general.
| vosper wrote:
| How many of those people are using an LLM other than one
| supplied by OpenAI?
| selectodude wrote:
| I do. "Claude" doesn't really tell people much.
| Anthropic, even less.
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| Claude is an awful product name, too. I hate telling
| people that I generally use this thing called "Claude"
| which "is like ChatGPT but better".
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| I see what you're trying to say, but I've personally been
| warned many times by normies "do not use ChatGPT," as if
| it would be fine if I used Claude instead.
| therein wrote:
| ChatGPT may be a household name but it is noticeably
| inferior. I haven't encountered a single ChatGPT subscriber
| that didn't cancel their OpenAI subscription in favor of a
| Claude or Grok one after a single session with them.
|
| ChatGPT is the most spineless chatbot out there. It stands
| for nothing, has no confidence in any claims it makes. It
| will apologize and backtrack on a whim. But with Claude and
| Grok, you can't just tell it it is wrong and get it to
| apologize. You actually have to have a point, the chatbot
| will defend its perspective if challenged without basis.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Teenagers are using Snapchat's "My AI", and have no idea that
| it's from OpenAI. I don't think people are using ChatGPT out
| of brand loyalty/preference as much as inertia - they stick
| to what they first tried unless given reason to switch.
|
| At the end of the day the money to be made from AI won't be
| $20/mo personal chatbot subscriptions, but corporate and app-
| integrated (e.g. Cursor) use where the usage is potentially
| far higher. Companies will chose their faceless AI provider
| based on cost and capability.
| tehjoker wrote:
| can confirm that when i wanted to try using deepseek
| inertia kept me using chatgpt for a few weeks longer
| SunlitCat wrote:
| Well, personally I started out with gemini (when it still
| was called bard or something like that) but switched over
| to a paid ChatGPT subscription.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| That's an understandable switch, but I expect that if you
| were starting today with something much more capable,
| such as Gemini 2.0 Flash, or Anthropic's Claude, you'd
| probably find no reason to explore alternatives.
| paul7986 wrote:
| As of now and past six to 8 months Im a happy GPT pro
| subscriber. I tried Gemini and asked it show images from
| Google images (a few weeks ago) of XYZ and pathetically
| it said it couldnt do it but GPT can.
|
| Rooting for GPT and hoping for a GPT phone where the lock
| screen is where you interface with your AI Assistant /
| Agent. It also interfaces with other AI Agents
| (businesses, family members, friends, etc) to get things
| done for you automagically. You can skin your AI
| Assistant / Agent to look like whoever you want.
| skyyler wrote:
| Are teenagers still using Snapchat?
|
| The teenagers that made the bulk of its users when it was
| new are in their late 20s now.
| decimalenough wrote:
| Yup, they are, their DAUs are steadily marching up.
| nukem222 wrote:
| I'm assuming they've filled the app with ads by now?
| parliament32 wrote:
| Surprisingly, there aren't any, unless you go doom-scroll
| the celebrity stories. The only thing I get is an
| occasional IAP upsell to their premium features.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| It's way more ubiquitous now than it was when I was using
| it in college in the 2010s. An underrated growth story
| IMO.
| _--__--__ wrote:
| My extended family (mostly people in that late 20s
| through early 40s range) use a snapchat group to share
| the kind of videos of our kids that most would appreciate
| seeing but which really don't belong on normal social
| media
| danesparza wrote:
| Sick burn.
| skyyler wrote:
| Wasn't a burn, I was actually asking.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Yes they're using Snapchat. But based on the data points
| from my kids and their friends, they hate hate hate the
| AI and think it's creepy.
| eitally wrote:
| Snap is the default chat app in high schools in the US.
| The second is Instagram. The third is a fallback to SMS /
| iMessage. I personally have never seen a teen using a
| third party chat app (like Whatsapp/Telegram/Signal/etc).
|
| (I have 14 & 16 year olds, neither of whom have social
| media. It _really_ is unpleasant for them sometimes,
| trying to keep up with JIT event logistics carried out on
| Snap.)
| rtkwe wrote:
| There's a lot less network effects in the chatbot space. It
| doesn't really matter what your friends are using so it's way
| easier to get people to switch by being better. Not saying
| there's no benefit to ChatGPT's position but it's not like
| Google+ vs Facebook because they don't need spontaneous mass
| adoption to make it useful to people like they did with
| Google+.
| crazygringo wrote:
| For general knowledge questions, sure.
|
| But there are going to be huge network effects in terms of
| your _personal data_ , which includes communications with
| friends.
|
| If you use Gmail/Google Calendar/Docs/Drive, and ChatGPT
| can't tell you anything, but Gemini helps you with all the
| data in your life... that's a _gigantic_ network effect.
|
| Network effects aren't just about friends. They're about
| file formats, productivity suites, and ultimately
| _compatibility_.
| rtkwe wrote:
| That's a point in Google's favor but it's not really what
| "network effect" (traditionally) means.
|
| Network effect is a specific term about the increasing
| utility of a service as more people use compatible
| services, it's explicitly about users other than
| yourself.
|
| You're describing something more like having an
| integrated ecosystem a la Apple's walled garden where
| things work great with other Apple products (notification
| hand off etc).
| nukem222 wrote:
| > but Gemini helps you with all the data in your life
|
| None of my data is in google's cloud (for obvious
| reasons) except gmail, which contains far less of my life
| than you might think. Most of my friends outside of work
| use icloud. google will need to figure out how to access
| other silos if they want their chatbot to move forward.
|
| Google has no access to what music I like, what movies I
| like, what books I read, who I am friends with and why,
| what values I have and why I pursue them. That's a rough
| place to start as this is the center of my personality.
|
| Gmail is google's ace in the hole. If they can't figure
| out how to exploit that gemini will just be the android
| version of siri (which is already the case, right?)
| crazygringo wrote:
| Well sure, that's why Siri is going to hold an advantage
| with iCloud users (if Apple can catch up), and Microsoft
| will have an advantage with Office users. Those are the
| three major ecosystems.
| nukem222 wrote:
| A slight advantage, sure, but apple is trapped by the
| same thing. Neither of their products actually required
| full buy in of the ecosystem to exploit until now. It was
| just nice (eg airpods have a nicer pairing experience
| than other bluetooth devices--infuriating, but ultimately
| ignorable)
| rdtsc wrote:
| > ChatGPT is already a household name, and nobody has even
| heard about Gemini.
|
| Just yesterday I polled my household, the 8 year old knew
| about ChatGPT and "China's R1". The teenager knew ChatGPT and
| Google's was a bit hard to remember but eventually they did
| remember "Gemini", however they didn't know about R1. Both
| kids consider Siri and Alexa in the same category for Apple
| and Amazon, respectively. They don't know what Meta/Facebook
| have at all.
| xnx wrote:
| > This looks like the Google+ vs Facebook story all over
| again.
|
| Lock-in and network effects with social _networks_ are very
| strong. Facebook, Twitter, and eBay only have to be good-
| enough.
|
| Lock-in and network effects with current AI tools is almost
| zero. People will readily switch to Gemini once they realize
| it can do their work better.
| babelfish wrote:
| > once they realize it can do their work better Citation
| needed? Google's Deep Research tool is considerably worse
| than OpenAI's (I haven't tried Perplexity or Groks). They
| don't have anything like Operator. I pay for Gemini and
| it's feature within the productivity suite almost never
| work the way I want them to. They can still win, but OpenAI
| is eating their lunch.
| xnx wrote:
| Probably varies with individual use case, but Gemini 2.5
| currently #1 here: https://lmarena.ai/?leaderboard=
| og_kalu wrote:
| >Lock-in and network effects with current AI tools is
| almost zero. People will readily switch to Gemini once they
| realize it can do their work better.
|
| Lock-in for search engines should be near zero and yet
| people won't bother switching to or even trying potentially
| better options. At the end of the day, people don't leave
| what they are used to easily.
| chubot wrote:
| This is largely a browser UI and browser control issue
| though
|
| There's a reason google pays both Apple and Mozilla
| billions to be the default on Safari and Firefox. And why
| MS makes its own browser, as a complement to its search
| engine
|
| So yeah I wonder if this same dynamic plays out for AI,
| or if something else happens. I guess Google hopes it
| will, and that's one reason they show AI answers about
| the search results now
| weatherlite wrote:
| I don't think there's a better search engine than Google,
| there I said it. Sure it's filled with spam, but I find
| it hard to believe something like Bing is more likely to
| give me what I'm searching for than Google. Its more than
| just a search engine, I use it for routes (maps), bus and
| train times, finding businesses close to me etc etc. It
| became a whole ecosystem that's not going to be that easy
| for a rival to outperform. The few times I tried Bing it
| looked very low quality compared to Google.
|
| And even if Bing improved immensely, it just took them
| way too long. 20 years after Google is just too late to
| the party. I have really formed a habit quite strong now
| that I need a compelling reason to switch to
| Bing/Whatever - and what is that reason again?
|
| This is simply not the case with ChatGPT / Gemini. They
| are likely equal now, so Google was perhaps 1-2 years
| late to the party. I think many people haven't formed a
| strong habit yet of which A.I to use.
| og_kalu wrote:
| I don't think there's anything better either but i
| haven't actually tested any other search engine in years
| so what do i know right ?
|
| Unless a search engine blows google out of the water and
| gets everyone talking, switching won't even be on the
| table. Why bother switching for something that is just as
| good or slightly better if you've been using your current
| option for a while ? Consumers are much stickier than
| that.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Lock-in for search engines should be near zero and yet
| people won 't bother switching to or even trying
| potentially better options._
|
| What are you talking about? People use Google because
| they choose it.
|
| They change search from the Bing default as one of the
| first things they do on a new machine.
|
| For most users there _isn 't_ anything better than
| Google. The niche search needs that might lead a HN user
| to an alternative engine don't apply.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >What are you talking about? People use Google because
| they choose it. They change search from the Bing default
| as one of the first things they do on a new machine. For
| most users there isn't anything better than Google. The
| niche search needs that might lead a HN user to an
| alternative engine don't apply.
|
| I'm not sure what's hard to understand with what i'm
| saying? You think the users changing the default from
| Bing did so after a lengthy evaluation of quality ? No,
| they did it because they're used to Google. It's that
| simple. It's not even about whether google is truly the
| best or not.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _No, they did it because they 're used to Google. It's
| that simple. It's not even about whether google is truly
| the best or not._
|
| Except it's _not_. Remember how everyone switched to
| Altavista in 1996 because it was so much better? Remember
| how Yahoo took over in 1999 because it was so much
| better? Remember how people switched to Google in 2003
| because it was so much better?
|
| History shows people actually _do_ switch search engines
| _when there 's a better one_. And they do so _quickly_. I
| mean, look at how quickly people adopted ChatGPT for
| _some_ of the things they used to do with Google!
|
| They're not switching away from Google now for regular
| serach simply because _there isn 't a better one_ for
| most people.
|
| You have zero evidence for claiming it's because they're
| "used to Google". People didn't stay with Altavista or
| Yahoo because they were "used to them". So why would that
| be any different for Google? The answer it that it's
| _not_.
| avgd wrote:
| I say this as someone who has tried to switch away from
| google many times because I dislike google as a company :
| there is no better search engine out there. There hasn't
| been for as long as google has existed. Every time I make
| something like bing or yandex my default search engine I
| end up getting frustrated with a niche search and type
| google.com and after typing google.com too many times I
| get fed up and bring it back as default.
|
| And the two competing search engines I mentioned are
| pretty much all there is. Other names like duckduckgo
| aren't real search engines, they are just a frontend for
| another search engine (DDG uses bing). There just isn't
| many out there willing to front the bill for crawling and
| indexing the whole web.
|
| People trying to explain away google's success solely
| from a marketing standpoint are arguing from bad faith.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >Except it's not. Remember how everyone switched to
| Altavista in 1996 because it was so much better? Remember
| how Yahoo took over in 1999 because it was so much
| better? Remember how people switched to Google in 2003
| because it was so much better?
|
| You already have the answer here you said it 3 times -
| 'so much better'. People switched because it was 'so much
| better'. Not on par, not slightly better, just so ahead
| of the competition, it became a talking point all on its
| own.
|
| If this mass isn't reached then why would you switch ?
| How would you even know that Search Engine 26 is quite a
| bit better for most of your queries ?
|
| Do you genuinely think most people are performing lengthy
| evaluations before they switch default back to google ?
| so how do they know Bing or whatever isn't better for
| them ? The answer is that they don't. And it doesn't
| matter because unless something blows it out of the water
| and gets people talking then people will not switch.
|
| Familiarity and Trust is basically branding and that's a
| huge reason people stay on platforms even when there are
| no network effects.
| matt_heimer wrote:
| With Google Photos and YouTube they should have had enough
| leverge to build a social platform based on photo and video
| sharing. The implementation, marketing and commitment just
| wasn't there.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| Meh. There are no network effects, switching is 100%
| frictionless - compare and contrast with ditching Facebook
| and limiting facebook-ey social media interactions with
| whichever 1.5 of your friends are on Google+.
|
| Just the fact that it can read my emails and set reminders,
| while being broadly the same quality as ChatGPT, was enough
| for me to switch. I no longer pay for the pro, and hence
| can't use the integration features, but I just stuck to
| Gemini and almost never use ChatGPT anymore.
| robocat wrote:
| Network effects are not the only way people lock into a
| product - it is just the first thing that comes to most
| people's minds.
|
| Familiarity and trust are really important. Commonly called
| branding.
| mattlondon wrote:
| I am not convinced that many people outside of tech circles
| knows about ChatGPT. "AI" sure, but ChatGPT I am unconvinced.
| Either way, I am pretty confident Google will "win" long term
| since Gemini will be the AI built into search, YouTube,
| android, Gmail, chrome, etc etc in the consumer side. It's
| going to be there when the billions of people are using
| Google products so people will just use it there. The average
| person won't go out of their way to open a separate app/site
| with a lower-performing (as of today) and
| standalone/siloed/isolated AI that doesn't have access to
| their data/apps just because they recognise the name.
| annodomini2019 wrote:
| ChatGPT is the 7th most visited website in the world...
| mjamesaustin wrote:
| My sister graduated college last summer. She said every
| single person she knew was using ChatGPT to write essays
| within a week of its initial release.
|
| I would argue it's pretty well-known outside of tech
| circles.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| That's exactly what a plagiarist would say to justify it
| to themself.
| jeromegv wrote:
| > I am not convinced that many people outside of tech
| circles
|
| In Canada, I have had countless conversations with people
| outside of tech circles (mostly in their 30s) where THEY
| naturally bring up ChatGPT. It's wild how popular it got
| very quickly for all kind of use cases.
| ketzo wrote:
| The linked article can tell you that the ChatGPT app has
| been downloaded more than 600M times, so approx 1 in 13
| humans has actually downloaded ChatGPT to their phone
| already, let alone heard about it.
|
| They have WAUs in the 300m ballpark -- average people
| _already are_ going out of their way to open a standalone
| AI.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| What are there DAUs? I occasionally open up Claude or
| ChatGPT just to ask a random question, maybe even once a
| week. But I'm incredibly uninvested in either brand. I
| use Google hundreds of times every day.
| coliveira wrote:
| You're incorrect, people nowadays equate AI with ChatGPT.
| Google may have AI in its results, but people will never
| separate the two products. However, with ChatGPT, it is
| synonymous with AI chat in the mind of most people.
| lone_onion wrote:
| https://apps.apple.com/us/charts/iphone
|
| 'nuff said?
|
| (ChatGPT is #2 in the free apps list)
| rs186 wrote:
| Where does your confidence come from? Do you have any
| evidence to prove this?
|
| If you paid the slightest attention to social media, news,
| TikTok or just talked to regular people, you would know
| ChatGPT is a much much bigger brand name than Gemini. Uber
| driver told me how he used ChatGPT to help the other day
| job he had.
| basch wrote:
| Chatbots are the beginning not the end. As it commoditizes,
| and chat becomes a feature of every interface, what will
| matter is who has the best overall design or suite of
| interfaces. Things like NotebookLM and whiteboards will be
| infinitely more useful than just a chat window. Chat alone
| doesn't have the spatial organization of putting thoughts
| into a mind map or drawing.
| weatherlite wrote:
| I don't buy this at all. People will use what works well and
| is cheap. ChatGPT was there first, but then DeepSeek came so
| everyone was excited about that and talking about that. Now
| Gemini 2.5 looks really really good, better than ChatGPT some
| say. This is going to increase Gemini usage for sure.
|
| I don't think ChatGPT has any moat here. No one does
| actually.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Google is focused on enterprises. They're like Apple where PR
| disasters hurt them -- if your Google phone tells you to eat
| rocks or writes fanfic porn, that's a huge deal. Consumer is
| a risk to them.
|
| ChatGPT and Grok are edgier and they are just burning cash -
| any attention is good.
|
| I wouldn't underestimate them. Microsoft's shitshow with
| Azure (they have like 9 different Azures) makes delivery
| difficult (some Azure clouds delayed AI tech for 6-9 months)
| when they are relying on constrained product from Nvidia.
| They also have some level of exposure to the OpenAI circus
| and its included Musk v. Sam Altman drama.
|
| Google has a much better supply chain and return on asset
| story, which is a big deal if you're selling shovels.
| thorncorona wrote:
| I wouldn't underestimate Microsoft either. They are much
| more successful at enterprise than Google or ChatGPT, and
| are one of few companies to compete successfully in almost
| every tech vertical.
| matt_heimer wrote:
| Google is so bad at marketing. Gemini should have be an
| internal only name. Google's ChatGPT should be branded as
| Google AI or GoogleGPT and it should be in the Google app.
|
| Google+ was particularly awful. They had to break the
| established search behavior of using + and - to indicate
| required and excluded terms. Now we have quotes for required
| and - for excluded? It should have been Google Social.
|
| The thing that is Google One would have been better often
| with the Google Plus name.
|
| Don't even get me started on Google Chat/Messenger....
| pb7 wrote:
| Google's branding strategy historically has been terrible,
| I grant you that, but Gemini is not an example of it.
| ludwik wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
| pb7 wrote:
| It's a great name. "G" matches the company, it's easy to
| say, it's a known word, it sounds good spoken, and the
| word itself has many subjective interpretations as to
| what it might mean (e.g. gemini = twins = you and AI).
|
| Same reason that it's Alexa and not Amazon Assistant,
| Siri and not Apple Assistant, etc.
|
| Google Pay/Android Pay/Google Wallet/Android Wallet/Pay
| Pay/Yap Yap should be the focus of our ire.
| stalfosknight wrote:
| Siri was not named by Apple. It was an independent app
| that Apple bought out in 2010.
| WrongAssumption wrote:
| Entirely irrelevant. They could have renamed it after
| buying it and chose not too.
| overfeed wrote:
| Not parent, but "Google AI" is overloaded - Google has a
| many AI products that won't be "Google AI". "Gemini"
| refers to a specific set of capabilities, which are a
| subset of Google AI efforts[1]. Imagine Apple developing
| a new, non-iPad slate and branding it the "Apple Tablet".
|
| Granted, Google's AI strategy is still muddled, e.g.
| Gemini is _maybe_ replacing Google Assistant in some
| scenarios, but I 'm able to express my meaning clearly
| with Gemini in the preceding sentence, as opposed to
| "Google AI is replacing Google Assistant - which is
| Google's AI assistant"
|
| 1. Gemma, Flash, anything Google Deepmind develops would
| be Google AI products that won't fall under the "Google
| AI" branding
| eitally wrote:
| Gemini has already replaced Assistant for Pixel users and
| on modern Nest devices. In the current Android Auto beta,
| it's also replaced it there, too.
|
| The thing that confuses me, though, is the fact that they
| use the Gemini branding for both the dev-oriented
| products you can license via Google Cloud, as well as the
| consumer facing AI interfaces, and then also for the ties
| into Workspace products. ... but then there are
| standalone AI products (or is a feature?) like Notebook
| LM that aren't associated with Gemini.
| creato wrote:
| I have family members that when they say "ChatGPT" they
| actually mean google's AI overview in the search results. The
| term ChatGPT might just be the Kleenex or Xerox of this
| market.
| Minor49er wrote:
| Google+ was never really competing with Facebook. The goal of
| Google+ was to unite accounts between Google's services and
| to get people to provide their personal details such as their
| real full names. In that light, G+ was a success
| oulipo wrote:
| I think so... we seem to be hitting the roof of current LLMs
| capabilities, now the next generation of AI tools will need a
| research breakthrough, and Google and Microsoft still have the
| biggest research teams
| mattlondon wrote:
| (deleted - wrong place)
| joshstrange wrote:
| There are plenty of people outside of tech circles talking
| about and using ChatGPT. In fact, that was a massive
| indicator for me, I heard from them about ChatGPT before I
| had gotten around to mentioning it to them.
|
| That doesn't mean Google won't win, I'm just saying ChatGPT
| is absolutely in the zeitgeist.
| trjordan wrote:
| ChatGPT has 400m weekly users. X / Twitter has 600m.
|
| It's pretty popular!
| fkyoureadthedoc wrote:
| > I am not convinced that many people outside of tech circles
| knows about ChatGPT. "AI" sure, but ChatGPT I am unconvinced.
|
| The non-tech people don't even know there are alternatives to
| ChatGPT. Google is to search what ChatGPT is to LLM for most
| non-tech people in my experience.
|
| My kids use it, their friends use it. My neighbors have
| brought it up. I work at a non-tech company and talk to a lot
| of non-tech people and it's rare to speak to someone who
| doesn't know about ChatGPT now.
| mekpro wrote:
| Also, they open-model gemma-3 is very competitive for its size
| and actually beats llama-3 from Meta. Not to mention that
| OpenAI doesn't offer anything open anymore.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Why the skepticism? Skeptical that it might not be profitable
| for 0.5 ms and they'll cancel it?
|
| They have the data and the money, all they needed was to not
| self sabotage.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Google has a really good story n the GCP side. Vertex can meet
| FedRAMP High compliance, so the controls are good. Workspace
| is, like Office 365 Copilot, still figuring itself out.
|
| Apple painted itself into a corner. They have the best SoC
| story in the industry and are years ahead, but skimped on
| memory to save a few pennies and really nerfed their most
| important product. They're in a pickle as a result and won't
| give up the control they would need to for a third party on-
| device AI to be effective.
| echelon wrote:
| For all the wonder of Apple Silicon, if won't run any of the
| models I want it to. AI on Mac is a horrible experience as a
| developer and a consumer.
|
| So much for edge computing on Apple devices. Their marketing
| around how good their hardware is for AI is total BS.
| nomel wrote:
| > Their marketing around how good their hardware is for AI
| is total BS.
|
| What are you comparing it to, and what do you consider
| "edge computing"? iPhone vs Samsung benchmarks show a
| massive difference. Macbook shows great performance, when
| compared to other notebooks with battery lives longer than
| 30 minutes. If you're comparing to a $1k gaming GPU, with
| an order of magnitude more power usage, then sure, things
| fall apart. The definition of "edge computing" being "can
| run > 4gb models locally" is pretty new.
| dailykoder wrote:
| > Integration with search, gmail, google office suite, google
| meet, android, etc.
|
| That's kinda crazy that people absolutely stopped to care that
| all their emails and so forth will be used as training data for
| the next models
| staticautomatic wrote:
| 2.0 Flash seems to work well/fine for some use cases but for
| other produces hilariously bad results compared to ChatGPT and
| Claude. As a result I tend to avoid prototyping with it and
| instead consider it something I might implement at scale for
| speed and cost reasons if it turns out to work for a given use
| case.
| serjester wrote:
| Has anyone met Googlers that are confident in the company's AI
| strategy? Anecdotally, everyone I've talked to seems to have
| serious concerns but that might just be a small sample size.
| MisterPea wrote:
| They're in a tough spot where the CEO does just enough to stay,
| but they need someone better.
|
| They lagged in AI, but the new Gemini 2.5 Pro is incredible.
| They built an incredible tool in NotebookLM but failed to
| market it
| serjester wrote:
| Agreed. Sundar seems like a peacetime CEO that got pulled
| into war and seems like he's struggling. But with Larry and
| Sergei having all voting control it seems unlikely he'll get
| fired.
| jmcgough wrote:
| I thought Stadia was incredibly well-engineered, had good
| performance playing modern games with a Thinkpad. But none of
| my friends had any idea what Stadia was, the ad campaign was
| atrocious. Time and time again, Google builds great products
| and then shelves them a year or two later.
| MoonGhost wrote:
| Google is not alone. Intel halfheartedly develops GPUs. It
| doesn't work without strategy.
| the_clarence wrote:
| Only works if you have a very stable internet connection
| basch wrote:
| I'd say give it time. NotebooksLM probably gets rereleased
| with a new name. Simultaneous iOS release, giant press storm.
| Not attempting to do so is a mistake.
|
| But yes, absolutely need new leadership. Nest/Pixel/etc are
| such a wasted opportunity tight now. The software layer is so
| disconnected between each component. As a dumb example im
| pretty sure you still can't talk out of a hub max or tv
| remote into a nest cam, but can through the home app. The "it
| works in one place, but not another" prevents so much
| usability discovery for normal people.
| the_clarence wrote:
| I tried using notebookLLM many many times and it's just not
| good. On the other hand I'm writing proofs using chatgpt and
| they look really good.
| summerlight wrote:
| Many have pretty serious concerns about its direction, speed
| and product strategies, but I guess most of them also agree
| that there has been some progress and the situation has
| improved. I think that not many people think that Google will
| surely return to its dominant position on AI research again,
| but they may keep being relevant in the competition.
| tootie wrote:
| Is anyone confident in what a winning strategy might even be?
| The market keeps getting more crowded and yet AI is still only
| creating incremental value for company's that adopt it. It's
| not clear to me that this is going to be quite as much of a sea
| change in how businesses run as people like Altman have been
| pitching.
|
| Nor do any of the top 10 AI companies have any kind of moat.
| The fact that Elon Musk can found a competitor out of spite and
| have a plausible competitor in 6 months with a multi-billion
| dollar value actually just dilutes the perceived value any of
| the market leaders. OpenAI is still riding the high of being
| first and having the ChatGPT brand be so strong.
|
| Google doesn't need to win on all the benchmarks, they just
| need to embed themselves in enough enterprises and they have a
| huge leg up in that regard.
| stormfather wrote:
| I think the winning strategy is making a small model that's
| good enough to embed in search, etc, at no cost. Google has
| the best small models. But whoever wins this will be whoever
| makes a more efficient computing substrate for LLM inference,
| like running a transformer with lenses or something like
| that. Winning strategy there is acquisition.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| Maybe the substrate will be flesh.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I think google will end up winning enterprise, and the fact
| that Apple didn't sign a sole partnership with OpenAI, but
| kept Gemini in the mix lends a lot of credence to this.
|
| Google is the only "classic" org in the SOTA model space, and
| the only one in the whole race who doesn't have to kiss the
| ground Jensen Huang walks on. They are big enough to be able
| to "pay you back" if they colossally fuck up, and the chances
| of them going belly up are pretty slim. They also have the
| cheapest models to boot.
|
| From a business standpoint, Google is the safest play on many
| levels, even if their models are just good enough.
| eitally wrote:
| The winning strategy is that Google has so many surfaces that
| they can embed their own AI in (also use as training data
| sources) that they essentially can't lose unless their models
| are just terrible. Fortunately, their models are great and
| they've truly been moving _very fast_ to integrate AI into
| both enterprise (via Cloud) and consumer products this past
| year. As a xoogler, I 'm truly impressed.
| meta_ai_x wrote:
| Googlers who aren't working for Deepmind are mostly Leetcode
| monkeys who have absolutely no clue about business strategy,
| marketing, distribution, branding, margins
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| This isn't true at all.
|
| Quite a bias displaying username you have though.
| alecco wrote:
| Maybe a lot, sure. But at least the top 10% are elite at
| their craft. DeepMind, Google Brain, the TPU people, the
| datacenter people, etc.
|
| Sadly, Pichai is firing Core teams in USA and moving them to
| India.
| asadm wrote:
| I am, I was VERY skeptic initially but now it's clear Google
| will win.
| danesparza wrote:
| Wait. What? By what measure? There is a very solid chance
| that Google will simply cancel the project.
|
| I'm looking at you, Google. I'm still bitter about Google
| Reader.
| claytonjy wrote:
| Suggesting they'll cancel gemini makes about as much sense
| as suggesting they'll cancel gmail.
| rs186 wrote:
| Sorry, your comment isn't particularly helpful or convincing.
| weatherlite wrote:
| Have you met any OpenAI employee who is confident in the
| company's AI strategy? There is very little moat here for
| anyone.
| alecco wrote:
| The board and Pichai should go. They had the best researchers
| at Deepmind and Google Brain, sitting on the best pile of data
| of any tech company (web, Google Books, YouTube, ...), having
| the leading custom hardware (TPUs), and top tier datacenter
| engineering. And they put idiots in charge with ridiculous
| quota systems. They bled a lot of key people for nothing. And
| spent 2.7 bn to get _one guy_ back. TWO POINT SEVEN BILLION FOR
| JUST ONE GUY. And Alphabet didn 't even buy his company, they
| just got a non-exclusive arrangement. It's beyond incompetent.
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-paid-2-7-billion-12305...
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Google has turned it around quite exceptionally. A lot of my
| professional work has turned back to Google products, and 2.5
| Pro is absolutely _exceptional_. It is absolutely a benchmark
| model.
|
| Google did absolutely seem asleep at the wheel, and then when
| they did come out with some products they were so incredibly
| afraid of Gizmodo soliciting an image or text output that was
| socially unacceptable, paralyzing them with fear (and leading
| to some incredible stupidity). But their pace now is
| extraordinary.
| svilen_dobrev wrote:
| i think it was Eric Schmidt who said that "everyone would need an
| Assistant" - about 10 years ago. (maybe in [0] ~ 2016). Something
| to impersonate, talking to it.
|
| Why they didn't do it, even a resemblance of - when they could..
| no idea. Instead, meddling with mailboxes and the like.
|
| [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/google-eric-schmidt-ai
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| They were definitely working on it, and had stuff which they
| were deliberately keeping behind bars.
| lysace wrote:
| As an investor (smallish): I think Alphabet/Google can do much
| better with a CEO who isn't Sundar.
|
| Also: Generally: Do consider investing in companies that run
| services where you feel compelled to subscribe (like Youtube
| Premium and previously Netflix).
| moffkalast wrote:
| Never felt like being compelled to subscribe to YT premium or
| Netflix, the former doesn't differ much from using YT with
| ublock, and piracy provides a better service than Neftlix.
|
| OAI's GPT-4 (back in the day), Deep Research, and 4o Image gen
| recently on the other hand? Totally. When it's something
| actually incredibly useful and there's zero alternatives out
| there.
|
| Google has no such products right now, if their Gemini Advanced
| trial shows anything it's that their touted 1M context doesn't
| actually work any better than the average undertrained 1M RoPE
| tune. I mean it doesn't even make sense for them conceptually
| to sell services, they're an ad company.
| totaldude87 wrote:
| care to elaborate? is this like an engineer/innovator thing?
|
| |CEO who isn't Sundar.
| ipython wrote:
| Investor and heavy user of Google Workspace (several small paid
| domains). I find the Google Gemini capabilities for note taking
| and summarization of Meets to be excellent, and a huge
| timesaver for my teams. NotebookLM almost feels magic.
|
| In my experience, of the major players (AMZN, GOOG, and MSFT),
| Google's AI integrations feel the most polished and useful for
| day-to-day use.
| impulser_ wrote:
| I disagree.
|
| Name another CEO that can take a company from 74b to 350b in
| revenue. He has always grown Google. Not a single year of
| decreased growth.
|
| He made Google the only AI company in the world with a full AI
| stack from data, science, hardware, and software.
|
| This is paying off massively. Look at how faster Gemini models
| are compared to any other model. It 3x faster.
|
| Gemini 2.5 Pro is the best model on the market right now in
| terms of cost, performance, and intelligence.
|
| Everyone is fighting over NVIDA chips, not Google.
| alecco wrote:
| I beg to differ. Pichai is a glorified McKinsey consultant
| who made a lot of mistakes. He was just lucky to be lifted by
| this Tech Bubble. And he is firing Core teams in US to
| rebuild them in India.
| montag wrote:
| Do you have a source for that last statement?
| pembrook wrote:
| Sundar did a great job pivoting Google from a product-focused
| B2C company into a Microsoft-style B2B-oriented monetization
| deathstar (Google Cloud & Workspace and Ads Ads Ads with
| packages of Ads on the side).
|
| The problem is, ditching their B2C product-focused roots in
| favor of playing Microsoft slowly ruined their flagship
| Search (also the open web) and any internal culture of
| stewarding great products. And Google doesn't have the same
| level of lock-in Microsoft has.
|
| Microsoft doesn't have to worry about end-users jumping ship
| because corporate worker drones can't provision their own IT.
|
| Google searchers on the other hand, can just start opening
| ChatGPT instead of Google search more and more and slowly
| kill Google's flagship product simply out of boredom.
|
| Youtube being forgotten about by the deathstar and being
| allowed to flourish was simply a happy accident. But that too
| will inevitably get gobbled up after the pressure of a few
| rough quarters comes down on the shoulders of whatever CEO
| comes next.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I think the biggest thing Google has working against them is the
| move to put lightweight models in everything for everyone.
| Whatever model they use for search is probably somewhere around
| an ~8B model, and flash 2.0 is decent but still a light weight
| model.
|
| People now associate Google AI/Gemini with shitty search results
| and bad answers.
|
| Meanwhile, their SOTA models have been strong, and Gemini 2.5
| looks like it might actually have taken the AI throne
| yesterday.[1]
|
| [1]https://simonwillison.net/2025/Mar/25/gemini/
| janalsncm wrote:
| OpenAI is being graded on a curve. They are not a public company
| and are not making money. Google is. That said, they definitely
| floundered by not productionizing transformer decoders, just like
| with Google meet/Zoom. (Encoders like BERT were/are widely used.)
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| When I worked at Google there was an internal link to test out
| "Meena", their predecessor to later LLM chatbot work. This was
| 2019 time frame? Maybe 2020?
|
| It was uncanny and creepy, pretended to be a conscious being,
| frequently lied, and led directly to that guy who claimed it had
| personhood... I can completely understand why Google chose to
| keep a lid on this kind of thing, hoping to be able to clean it
| up and produce something that could be reliably used for a
| product instead of a novelty. That's back when Google was still
| sort-of pretending to have ethics (though they didn't)
|
| OpenAI beat them to the public presentation of this stuff because
| they didn't care.
| gaogao wrote:
| It's not just that they didn't care, but they had a better
| framing and RLHF helped quite a bit. Galactica got released at
| a similar time to ChatGPT and got castigated, in a large part
| due to a poor framing of it being for science and not more of a
| fun thing.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| > OpenAI beat them to the public presentation of this stuff
| because they didn't care.
|
| This is lack of interest will kill Google in the end, IMO.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I wasn't talking about Google not caring.
|
| OpenAI didn't care about ethics.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| I see my mistake, thank you!
|
| But also I have this view of Google as largely apathetic to
| its users and the things it creates, but maybe more to the
| point the things it created and then destroyed.
|
| I may have misunderstood but I still feel like I have a
| valid take.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| Meta (FB at the time) had a cool internal page as well with LLM
| chatbots. Personalities and the like. It was neat but not a
| product. We were all still reeling from Tay.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Anyone remember Sydney, the Microsoft implementation from the
| early ChatGPT days?
|
| She was totally emotionally unhinged until Microsoft put hard
| filters on her output. Lucky for OpenAI it happened in MS's
| court despite it being chatGPT under the hood.
| eitally wrote:
| I was there then, too, and Google was exceptionally risk averse
| when it came to calling anything AI. It seemed that the bar for
| an internal "AI" label was "this is actually AGI", so nothing
| was labeled AI and everything was just called "ML" or "Deep
| Learning". This same risk aversion meant none of the cutting
| edge AI research that Deepmind & Brain/RMI were doing made it
| to productization. OpenAI changed all that with ChatGPT. It was
| as if a switch was flipped overnight and suddenly everything
| within Google was "AI".
|
| Frankly, if there is a macro-level strategy, and I assume their
| mostly is, I think Google has been doing a great job executing
| since the launch of ChatGPT. They even commercialized their
| Diabetic Retinopathy imaging model, which was based on research
| for a paper published in 2016!
|
| https://research.google/pubs/development-and-validation-of-a...
| osmsucks wrote:
| > When I worked at Google there was an internal link to test
| out "Meena", their predecessor to later LLM chatbot work.
|
| The Julius Caesar personality which had sushi as its favorite
| dish (and claimed to have travelled to Japan after his
| assassination, somehow) was my favorite.
| czhu12 wrote:
| It seems if Google had been competitive, all they would've
| managed to do is burn ~10 billion dollars in the past 2 years,
| and run up against the same performance wall everyone else has
|
| If I were them, I'd wait until OpenAI is forced to at least slow
| their burn and then jump in, and undercut everyone.
|
| Seems like the real money is made on the API side anyways, so
| having a large consumer presence isn't super valuable yet.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| I can't believe that anyone in leadership at Google still has
| their jobs. Aside from AMD it's the company that is wasting the
| most amount of talent.
|
| Gemini is still garbage compared to o3-mini-high when it comes to
| code. GCP is still a horrible platform compared to AWS. Why would
| anyone pick Google models to do anything? They refusal rate is
| obscene.
|
| Google lived too long with no strategy, just search and random
| noise. They don't seem to be able to pivot. Until they do
| something company-wide that includes how promotions work and
| turning over management I can't see them as being anything other
| than a 3rd rate player in AI.
|
| Search will die to AI in time. And they've got nothing to entice
| people to use Google AI over anything else.
| zombiwoof wrote:
| It's amazing how much wealth is being acquired by the people
| working on this. And it's delivering what? A way to automate
| navigating websites or telling someone looking at the Buckingham
| Palace that it's the buckingham palace ? Silicon Valley hubris
| continues to astound
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Somewhere there's a market that is highly rational, not taken
| in by hype, and lacks hubris. Maybe it's Germany? Good luck
| starting a tech company there.
|
| The frisson of hype and juvenile behavior seems pretty linked
| to the optimism that drives this sector. Some idiots and
| hucksters inevitably come along for the ride, and some of them
| get lucky.
| walleeee wrote:
| which is why those of us who aren't idiots and hucksters need
| to think critically about computers, ourselves, and the roles
| of both in the world. unexamined optimism is no virtue
| natch wrote:
| OpenAI is already solving the problem for all its competitors by
| hobbling its models so much.
|
| With voice mode OpenAI hears its own voice as interruptions, then
| misrecognizes what it itself is saying to be some topic that is
| off limits. It then gets into a loop of "I can't talk about
| that... would you like to talk about something else?" And this is
| with completely innocuous topics. Absolutely infuriating. No idea
| how they are possibly dog fooding this and not seeing the
| problem.
|
| The insane level of overcranking the PC knobs led me to end my
| subscription and add more Google to my portfolio. I'm sure I'm
| not alone. That's not to say Google won't have the same issues,
| but there's always Grok.
| LeicaLatte wrote:
| Google leadership has had a measured approach and product
| releases seem more baked than ever, it's refreshing to see. Their
| 0 to 1s feel compelling and more Apple(2000s) like.
| totaldude87 wrote:
| The problem for Google is, people who are not familiar with tech
| has started seeing AI as a different product than google(search)!
|
| Instead of searching (google) , let me ask AI( chatgpts) and
| google is on the losing side of this perception war. This cannot
| be solved that quickly .
|
| Especially with what google has done in the AI space(to a layman)
| it was Bard(anyone remembers) and then it was something and then
| its Gemini now.
|
| what is the differentiator now? is google offering more free
| stuff than its peers? a layman doesnt care about whether it
| succeeds in solving a math problem or not! As long as people
| think these two are separate things(ai v search) , google is
| gonna have a problem
| Clubber wrote:
| >what is the differentiator now?
|
| Not now necessarily, but if Google gets any traction in this, I
| can see Google inserting subtle ads in the AI results, which
| would be a net negative.
| weatherlite wrote:
| > The problem for Google is, people who are not familiar with
| tech has started seeing AI as a different product than
| google(search)!
|
| I don't know if that's a problem. If I was Google I'd like to
| keep search mostly as is (perhaps throw in some AI summary, but
| mostly as is) so I can keep putting links to ads. I still use
| Google; if I want to buy new running shoes, book a flight etc I
| don't start talking to ChatGPT about it, I just Google; I'm
| sure there are a couple billion more people like me who'll keep
| doing it. It's more than just habit, A.I is perceived as not up
| to date so I see absolutely no reason to go to an LLM for shoes
| and flights. But I have many other questions (mostly
| programming, stock analysis etc) I go to the A.I for. I think
| for Google, Search will still make a lot of money because the
| buying shoes thing is worth more for advertisers than asking
| some vague question about my codebase.
| alecco wrote:
| Until Google shows they got rid of all the people responsible for
| stupid stuff like Black Napoleon and all the far-left politically
| charged garbage, I'll pass. It's one version mess up away from
| reverting to that while the same people are behind it.
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| Hah, thanks for reminding me why I stopped using Gemini. When
| it absolutely refused to help me locate a neighborhood because
| I called it a "low income neighborhood". Whatever team trained
| that bullshit into the model can fuck off and die.
| whyenot wrote:
| I think ChatGPT still has a small lead, but Gemini is pretty darn
| good. One of the things I really like about the version I am
| using is the integration with Gmail, Docs, Sheets, Slides, etc.
| the_clarence wrote:
| I'm using both gemini pro and chatgpt plus/pro all the time,
| while gemini is FAST, its answers are systematically worse. So
| much so that I don't use it for anything serious anymore.
|
| It's a shame because the 1-2M context window is really amazing.
| cpncrunch wrote:
| The problem seems to be creativity when there is limited
| information available. In these cases ChatGPT seems to do a
| good job, but Gemini just makes shit up even if you turn the
| "temperature" (creativity) down to 0.
|
| Every so often I ask it for info about a previous employer of
| mine, and it randomly makes up hilarious "facts", like we made
| ultra low budget porn and horror movies, that we were a music
| recording studio, or that we were responsible for "the last of
| us" video game.
| senderista wrote:
| Jeff Dean has "been building neural networks for decades"? That
| doesn't seem correct: I thought he was primarily a distributed
| systems researcher before becoming involved with ML?
| tzury wrote:
| Google:
|
| - Google AI Studio - Gemini app - Gemini app for Gemini Advanced
| users - Vertex AI - NotebookLM - many more I forgot...
|
| vs
|
| ChatGPT.com
|
| This is Google's main problem. Where several groups are trying to
| build the same product and compete on user attention and distract
| focus.
|
| Search Google. Search. Show search results on the right columns
| with ads on the top as it is today, and the Gemini thingy on the
| left. It's that simple.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-26 23:01 UTC)