Live data from Hacker News

Why did Google Brain exist?

moderndescartes.com

141–150 of 328 posts

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Second, there is a small chance you're absolutely right, and you've just obviated a whole field from first principles. Mostly when I read about things like this happening, it's happening to a formerly intractable problem in mathematics. Do you have examples outside of math?

Alfred Wegener as the initial author on the theory of plate tectonics comes to mind. He was a trained meteorologist who observed the similarities between geological formations between the South American east coast and African west coast. He was lucky, in that his father in-law was a prominent geologist and helped him defend this thesis.

Oh yeah, revolutionary insights are very important for the advancement of knowledge and the elimination of wrong ideas. But as you wrote, this was the work of a thesis, not a random commenter from another field.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh, I mildly disagree. I'm not entirely bought-in on the notion that giving one's technical innovations for free is obviously the right move, but I don't think it's why the company is in trouble. Chrome is experiencing unprecedented competition because it faltered on the product. Chrome went from synonymous with fast-and-snappy to synonymous with slow-and-bloated. Likewise Google invented transformers - but the sin…

Well, Google could have easily not have shared its technology. However, the bloat problem you’ve described are difficult problems to solve, and are to some degree endemic to large businesses with established products.

> "Well, Google could have easily not have shared its technology."

Sure, but the idea is that if they didn't share their technology, they'd still be in the same spot: they would have invented transformers and still not shipped major products around it.

Sure maybe OpenAI won't exist, but competitors will find other ways to compete. They always do.

So at best they are very very slightly better off than the alternative, but being secretive IMO wouldn't have been a major change to their market position.

Meanwhile, if Google was better at productizing its research, it matters relatively little what they give away. They would be first to market with best-in-class products, the fact that there would be a litany of clones would be a minor annoyance at best.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But all your opinions are informed by your years of TGIFs and internal emails and discussions and presentations and your insider perspective. When you talk about promotions, or internal values and prioritizations, you are leveraging info gained privately. If I'm wrong and nothing in your contract or on-boarding said you shouldn't talk about internals, then my bad. But I suspect they were as clear with you as they wer…

Why do you care? Unless you work for Google Legal, you're in no position to scold OP about anything

I care because I value these Confidentiality commitments, and I believe that if someone doesn't like them, they should not sign them to begin with, rather than breaking them. A company (like any group of people) is allowed to define the culture and standards required for membership.

I've worked in extremely secretive companies, and very open ones. I prefer the open ones. But I still don't say anything about internals at the secretive ones -- because that was part of the commitment I made in exchange for employment.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#145
post #2

because once Jeff Dean had solved Google's maslow problems (scaling web search, making ads profitable, developing high performance machine learning systems) he wanted to return to doing academic-style research, but with the benefit of Google's technical and monetary resources, and not part of X, which never produces anything of long-term value. I know for sure he wanted to make an impact in medical AI and felt that b…

I generally agree with this though with some tweaks. I think Jeff wanted to do something that he thought was both awesome (he's liked neural networks for a long time - his undergrad thesis was on them) and likely to have long-term major impact for Google, and he was able to justify the Awesome Thing by identifying a way for it to have significant potential revenue impact for Google via improvements to ad revenue, as well as significant potential "unknown huge transformative possibilities" benefits. But I do suspect that you're right that the heart of it was "Jeff was really passionate about this thing".

Of course, this starts to get at different versions of the question: Why did Google Brain exist in 2012 as a scrappy team of builders, and why did Brain exist in 2019 as a mega-powerhouse of AI research? I think you and I are talking about the former question, and TFA may be focusing more on the second part of the question.

[I was randomly affiliated with Brain from 2015-2019 but wasn't there in the early days]

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automatic subtitles and translation is actually a huge feature which is very useful to the many people that don't speak English. It definitely did provide Google with a lot of value.

> Automatic subtitles and translation is actually a huge feature which is very useful to the many people that don't speak English. It definitely did provide Google with a lot of value. It lost Google immense value. Before Google Brain the only speech recognizers that halfway worked were at Google, IBM and Amazon. And Amazon had to buy a company to get access. After Google Brain, anyone can run a speech recognizer. On…

But little startups are not threatening YouTube. And now they are paying money to Google for the use of Google Brain.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#147
post #131
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

waymo hasn't produced anything of long-term value yet. And everything about it that worked well wasn't due to Google X

Can you expand why being part of Google X hinders a team? I believe Waymo "graduated" from Google X to its own entity.

X exists as a press-release generation system, not as a real technology creation system. They onboard many impractical projects that are either copies of something being done already in industry ("but with more Google and ML!") or doesn't have a market (space elevators).

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#148
post #7

Lots of great insight. Here’s one: “Given the long timelines of a PhD program, the vast majority of early ML researchers were self-taught crossovers from other fields. This created the conditions for excellent interdisciplinary work to happen. This transitional anomaly is unfortunately mistaken by most people to be an inherent property of machine learning to upturn existing fields. It is not. Today, the vast majority…

As somebody who has crossed the line between ML and chemistry many times, I would love to see: more ML researchers who know chemistry, more chemistry researchers who know ML, and best of all, fully cross-disciplinary researchers who are both masters of chemistry and ML, as those are the ones who move the field farthest, fastest.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#149
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never worked at Google Brain, but I've been a research manager in tech for a decade, and nothing here seems surprising to me. It discusses the archetype of the well funded industry lab that is too academic and ultimately winds down. The post makes sensible but generic statements based on the view of an IC. It tries to work back from the conclusion (Google struggles to move academic research into product) and pro…

You're right that I don't know enough as an IC to comment on the thinking, actions, and promises at the exec level that kept Brain funded. But even if I did, to the GP's point, I would not talk about that part at all. I'm curious about your perspective as a research manager in tech - would you be willing to chat privately?

> But even if I did, to the GP's point, I would not talk about that part at all.

Even if you were one of said executives, who was moving to a higher-level job at another company, and the company was interviewing you as to the reasoning behind decisions made in your previous job?

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#150

> I sat on it because I wasn’t sure of the optics of posting such an essay while employed by Google Brain. But then Google made my decision easier by laying me off in January. My severance check cleared... I'm really baffled by how people think it's OK to write public accounts of their previous ( and sometime current! ) employers' inner workings. This guy got paid a shitload of money to do work and to keep all intern…

That's not really what's happening here I think.

I think he's just not sure what's ok or not ok to write about. Nothing he wrote here was problematic. No secrets and just sort of mild criticism.

Post reply on HN