421–430 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't right. In the real world every effort saps a little bandwidth from the CEO/top execs, potentially harms the brand, potentially causes the org to calcify. Better off handing the money back.
One solution with that is to spin off a company that does these things, while keeping majority ownership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One solution with that is to spin off a company that does these things, while keeping majority ownership.
It's probably better, but I'd just as soon take the money back as a shareholder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the "Google other" revenue is $25 billions, how many unicorns is that? As for what googlers told you, keep in mind that they are pretty loyal - they have that Lamda chatbot as if an employee perk, and only one of them leaked a sample.
$25B is 1/2 the revenue of Apple "wearables and accessories or 1/3 the revenue of Apple "services". $25B is also less than what Amazon now makes on ads, which should especially given Google pause. Consider that Amazon started as simply an online retailer and has successfully spun up other business lines that now account for 50% of revenue across online fulfillment / 3rd party services, physical stores, subscription s…
If we're comparing Amazon and Google you almost have to compare AWS to Google search since AWS is driving a huge part of their profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
And how hard would it be for ChatGPT to be retrained on peer reviewed medical journals? ChatMD-GPT, if you will.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004085
You can't take such articles seriously unless they have been independently reproduced multiple times. So, your hypothetical "ChatMD-GPT" would have to also filter on that basis and perhaps calculate some sort of confidence level.
Last time this happened people thought social was the future. Facebook was considered a threat to everything since they had the social-graph, so everything had to become social. Google+, Google Buzz, Orkut.
There's a surprisingly long and detailed blog post ( https://ai.googleblog.com/2023/01/google-research-2022-beyon... ) which details some of what they have coming this year. It sounds like they're planning on taking some of the skunkworks/internal stuff and exposing it through products. Sidenote: I was surprised to see one of the charts even showing ChatGPT outperforming LaMBDA in one area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Information generated by humans will include things like transpositional errors, logical errors, popular misconceptions, and misinterpretations of data. Mistakes happen, but human mistakes are at least tethered to real thoughts/information.
On the other hand, AI will happily spin up a complete fabrication with zero basis in reality, give you as much detail as you ask for, and dress it all up in competent and authoritative-sounding prose. It will have all the style of a textbook answer, while the substance will be pure nonsense.
Still a great tool, but only with the caveat that you approach it with the mindset that it's actively set out to catch you off guard and deceive you.
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…
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…
If I want to invest in an X or Y, then I will do that. In fact I am well diversified into hundreds of other companies anyway. But I don't want my ad distribution investment clouded or diluted with cars, AI, balloons, or anything else.
Let a business be good at one thing (possibly closely adjacent things), and live as long as that's a valuable contribution to society, then close the doors.
It's the execs that want to diversify into other areas, because this is what keeps them in the game longer. If the business they are currently running winds down, that may not be good for them.
Last time this happened people thought social was the future. Facebook was considered a threat to everything since they had the social-graph, so everything had to become social. Google+, Google Buzz, Orkut.
Google+ was good until google lost its mind and started shoving it everywhere- even I as a google+ user HATED this. It was to me the social network for grownups without the Facebook clickbait - I liked the circles model too (I did one for professional stuff one for personal) and great photos support. But then someone was put in charge who lost their mind and just started wrecking products (YouTube etc) with plus and…
It was a poor decision, and I agree as a consumer that this time period sucked. But I understand why the push was made. G+ only bet was to get everyone to use at once and right away. I don't agree with the assessment of someone losing their mind in this ordeal, it was the only option they had to otherwise be second bitch at best for perpetuity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also sounds like they really believe the whole founder-hero mythology if they think that Page-Brin can save the company Maybe I'm overly cynical, but don't they hold > 50% of voting shares? It may just be C-suite CYA action: by ensuring Brin & Page's buy-in on counter-ChatGPT strategy this early, who would blame the current CEO if it doesn't pan out? It won't be "Sundar Pichai's plan" that's at fault
Why would the owners pay a man $200M/yr of their hard earned money, if he comes to them to say he doesn't know how to do his job?