Live data from Hacker News

Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

nytimes.com

231–240 of 518 posts

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this is the most insane thing about GOOG to me. Yes, search is basically monopoly moat of recurring growing revenue. On the other hand, they've spent not a decade, but about 25 years betting this would remain the case! I've met a lot of people who work at GOOG, and yet none of them could explain to me how the thing they work on makes any money for GOOG. In fact, most went out of their way to volunteer to me that…

It’s not the people, it’s the management that decided which traits they would reward, both at hiring and during the career.

at least in the tech side of things, they decided to hire the same type of person, uncreatives who memorize leetcode questions and have no ability to think outside of that box.

memorize leetcode, regurgitate memorize system design, regurgitate.

There are no room for creatives with that process.

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#232
post #118

Seems like Google leadership is freaking out. Also sounds like they really believe the whole founder-hero mythology if they think that Page-Brin can save the company. I don’t know how Google could be saved but perhaps having grateful and happy employees that would just build things in their 20% time might have been a better strategy. A truly revolutionary step would have been to buck the layoffs trend. But of course…

Google already has lambda. I bet they’re full steam ahead on making that work with search.

As a side note, I think Sundar is a perfect CEO for a time like this. He’ll do whatever it takes to get the future lined up without injecting a lot of ego into it.

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#233

"In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete." Transcribing this profound insight of Buckminster Fuller to the current debate: You cannot out-do google by inventing "smarter" search. You need to create a new business model that makes the old one obsolete. Is there any evidence that all this algorithmic magic…

Exactly. Search ads are pretty much the perfect internet business model - if my biz is having a sale on lawnmowers, who better to target than people googling for "buy lawnmower"? If this is done right, everyone walks away happy and google makes a killing. ChatGPT is great, but it's pretty far from providing good answers to "where can I get a good deal on a lawnmower right now?" They might take over a decent share of…

You are describing a comparison shopping search/aggregator.

If you are having a sale, you are going to be near the top of the results for any reasonable sorting scheme. (An actual sale, not here's 50% off of my bullshit price)

And searching Google for "buy lawnmower" is a good way to buy something you didn't want or need. Even if you actually needed a lawnmower. The only people it helps are those who don't care whether the item is good, and don't care about the price at which point they might as well just walk into the nearest store and buy the first one they see.

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#234
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT often makes up facts. It outputs stuff that looks like it could have been written by a human, not stuff that is correct. Don’t use ChatGPT for medical research.

> ChatGPT often makes up facts. As opposed to... Google? Your doctor? My doctor?

Absolutely as opposed to those things. With Google, if you use a reliable source like Mayo, NIH, even a WebMD, It is clearly more likely to have accurate information than something that proves even numbers are prime. Certainly all those things can be inaccurate but where in the world you think ChatGPT pattern matches it’s information from?

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#235
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Google gives you the source. ChatGPT does not.

It’s funny because when I was in high school the argument was always “books, published articles and other print media are actual source material, Google doesn’t give you that”

You think Google does not provide results from books, published articles, etc? Really?

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess they are less concerned about where ChatGPT is today than where it will be in 5 years.

Even more convincing when it is wrong?

It won't be wrong forever, there's a good chance they'll figure out how to evaluate sources and provide more useful results. And besides, the bar is low -- Google search results for some topics (e.g., programming related) are quite poor, filled with garbage and clone sites.

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be freaking out. Google is overwhelmingly dependent on a single revenue stream and AI like ChatGPT is a serious threat to their dominant position. Not to mention, Google has spent a decade using their defacto monopoly as leverage and optimizing for ads and clicks, often exploiting their own users in the process. The bar for better was lower than it should have been, and the market is hungry for an alterna…

they spent years as well polishing their tools like google mail, docs, search and etc.. so i guess they still have a lot of enterprise or paid users, paying for their services. Actually the numbers are quite impressive[0]: "The global G suite business software market is expected to grow from US$ 2,224.76 million in 2021 to US$ 3,903.72 million by 2028; it is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 8.4% during 2021-2028. G sui…

2bi USD is like 1% of Google's annual operating expenses.

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads work because they're embedded in interesting or useful things. No one would use a search engine composed of 100% ads. Chat-GPT can be used for this: returing interesting results. The ads don't have to be served through chat-GPT, but could be given as a side result.

> No one would use a search engine composed of 100% ads. Isn’t that pretty much what the Yellow Pages used to be? As long as you know what you’re getting…

Or virtually all trade magazines, Auto Trader, swingers' magazines, plenty of hobby magazines. There are tons of things you buy for the ads. MaximumRocknRoll in the 80s and 90s, the reason you bought it was to find out where to buy records, the articles were extras (and they told you what records might be good and what bands might be good to see.) Their coolest co-publishing thing was issuing guides to all of the clubs and other vendors in every city and state that touring bands needed to book.

These are all ads. The enemy isn't ads, it's an extremely intrusive and adversarial advertising industry posture.

Ads are useful, they tell me where and what things are available. The problem is that everyone uses the methods originated with patent medicine to sell everything.

The methods of selling patent medicine are simply the methods of confidence men; the "medicine" was probably just some unholy mix of alcohol and mercury. Patent medicine marketing emphasizes secrecy, because they're usually mostly frauds; and also because to any extent they are not fraudulent, they want to be exclusive and not copied. Patent medicine marketing also emphasizes leads, surveillance and secret dossiers. When you're selling dreams, you have to know what people are dreaming about; you also have to know how much they have to spend.

Our advertising problem is a legislative problem. We find it very difficult to police this kind of behavior because it is so widespread among the powerful (and is usually what got them powerful.) It is also completely rational behavior because the methods of con men will sell more regardless of the quality of the product i.e. a good product sells even better using underhanded methods. So there's simply no way to protect your world from being run by the best con men without creating legal obstructions for them.

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT often makes up facts. It outputs stuff that looks like it could have been written by a human, not stuff that is correct. Don’t use ChatGPT for medical research.

> Don’t use ChatGPT for medical research. Or Google. There are plenty of pages out there that (e.g.) claim that Alzheimers is caused by drinking out of aluminum cans, or that the world is controlled by grey aliens from Zeta Reticuli.

… you know Google provides the URL right? With Google it is very easy to tell if the information is coming from NIH or infowars/forums/etc.

Re: Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be freaking out. Google is overwhelmingly dependent on a single revenue stream and AI like ChatGPT is a serious threat to their dominant position. Not to mention, Google has spent a decade using their defacto monopoly as leverage and optimizing for ads and clicks, often exploiting their own users in the process. The bar for better was lower than it should have been, and the market is hungry for an alterna…

they spent years as well polishing their tools like google mail, docs, search and etc.. so i guess they still have a lot of enterprise or paid users, paying for their services. Actually the numbers are quite impressive[0]: "The global G suite business software market is expected to grow from US$ 2,224.76 million in 2021 to US$ 3,903.72 million by 2028; it is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 8.4% during 2021-2028. G sui…

Not only are the numbers impressive, the tools are impressive too.

But that doesn't change the reality that ad revenue related to search is the lion's share of Google's revenue. That makes them exceptionally vulnerable for a company of their size and breadth. And in that vulnerable area, anecdotally at least, the search quality feels as if it has regressed over the years.

Google was once the gateway to the web. Now they are the gatekeepers of the web.

Maybe I'm just nostalgic. Maybe things were never as good as I imagined they were. Maybe my expectations are unfair. But the Google of my memory was innovative. It delighted. That feels far removed from the Google of today.

Post reply on HN