Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#111

Post by magicalist »

vogon_laureate wrote: post #108
endisneigh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I mentioned, don’t use google products then. What’s the value of spamming this all of the time? The validity of the concern isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that it’s irrelevant to the content being posted.

How is it irrelevant? If a new project/product is being hyped by a company with a well documented history of hyping then abandoning projects and products, it's objectively a relevant comment. For example, if there's a post about the new Threads app, and someone comments about Meta's record on, say... security, data privacy, moderation or support of Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook, or something about their failed pr…

Eh, as a ride or die google reader fan, when there's six "DAE google reader" comments in a row, you all just read like lazy comments looking for some karma and detailing any (potential) interesting discussion before it starts. That's my main draw here, so definitely a reflexive down vote from me.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#112

Post by tylerhou »

vogon_laureate wrote: post #108
endisneigh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I mentioned, don’t use google products then. What’s the value of spamming this all of the time? The validity of the concern isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that it’s irrelevant to the content being posted.

How is it irrelevant? If a new project/product is being hyped by a company with a well documented history of hyping then abandoning projects and products, it's objectively a relevant comment. For example, if there's a post about the new Threads app, and someone comments about Meta's record on, say... security, data privacy, moderation or support of Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook, or something about their failed pr…

It's not irrelevant, it's just incredibly tiring reading the same comment over and over again on every thread that remotely mentions Google launching a new product.

> For example, if there's a post about the new Threads app, and someone comments about Meta's record on, say... security, data privacy

OK, let's look at the Threads launch post. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36580192.

- Ctrl+F "security". Exactly 0 comment hits (on the first page).

- Ctrl+F "privacy". There are three hits, and two of them just mention "privacy policy" without making a comment about Meta's previous privacy violations.

- Ctrl+F "moderation". Exactly one hit about how Meta has historically been bad about moderation.

Let's look at the current post about Google launching this product (NotebookLM). Ctrl+F "kill". There are at LEAST ten comments about how Google will kill this product off soon. It's not comparable to the discussion re. Meta and its history.

Google killing off products is table stakes at this point. Imagine every time you clicked on an HN discussion about Python, you had to read ten comments about how Python is slow and if you want a faster language you should use Rust. "Python slow, Rust fast." Yes, we get that already. Can we just skip the memetic comments about "Google bad cuz they kill stuff" and read discussion with more meat?

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#114

Post by flandish »

endisneigh wrote: post #96
vogon_laureate wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are wary about Google product launches because of a well documented[1] pattern of corporate behaviour[2] when it comes to either the project's planning and execution, resourcing, or long-term support. You don't have to agree with those comments, but they are legitimate concerns being expressed by people who have been burned enough times by the company that it has developed a degree[3] of notoriety[4] for it as…

Like I mentioned, don’t use google products then. What’s the value of spamming this all of the time? The validity of the concern isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that it’s irrelevant to the content being posted.

> value of spamming

It’s not spam to some when they are reminded that google never was, a “do no evil” corporation.

Google has tarnished itself. Yes it’s the biggest. But this is because of a well documented cycle - and when evidence of this horseshit pops up “yet again” it’s important to remind everyone to not get too attached to anything google.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#115

Post by JimDabell »

mattzito wrote: post #95
JimDabell wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google Docs has been going strong for almost 2 decades I have to disagree here. There have been long stretches of time where it’s appeared to be a mothballed project with virtually no user-visible changes happening to it. Here’s the official changelog: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/9228272 Barely anything happened mid 2019–2021. It looked like a product in maintenance mode for years. Take July 2019 to July…

For whatever its worth, I worked near docs during that time, and that support note elides a lot of the launches that happened. The big focus during that time was on Office compatibility, and so there were a lot of investment in things that were not end-user visible, but allowed for better coexistence in mixed environments. A massive launch in terms of impact and usage was the ability to directly edit word documents i…

Fair enough. But from an end-user perspective, I’ve been in multiple conversations where a topic was “can anybody remember the last time Google Docs launched a new feature?” and everybody was completely stumped and nobody could think of a single thing launched in years. When the company in question is Google that’s a very strong signal not to rely on that product being around much longer, which is why the state of Google Docs has been so confusing – clearly lost all momentum yet surprisingly not killed.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#116

Post by flandish »

px43 wrote: post #77
endisneigh wrote: post #72

I wish the folks who clearly do not like Google would just not use their products instead of spamming every thread about how they will kill the product, true or not. —— Anyway, It’s not clear which model they’re using for this. I assume whatever Bard is using, but who knows. This is relevant because depending on the intended experience the latency will matter. Overall it’s not a bad idea, but I do wonder what the mon…

Bard isn't a model, it's a product. Bard was launched with PaLM originally, the same model that the one employee claimed was sentient. At Google I/O they announced PaLM2 and switched over to Bard being backed by it, while also making Bard open to the general public on the same day. Google is currently in the process of training Gemini, which is positioned to be their GPT-4 killer, as it's multi-modal, and presumably…

> Bard is a product

No. The users are, as they are mined for detail to be used in advertisement and such later.

Bard is a vector.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#117

Post by lolinder »

vogon_laureate wrote: post #83
endisneigh wrote: post #72

I wish the folks who clearly do not like Google would just not use their products instead of spamming every thread about how they will kill the product, true or not. —— Anyway, It’s not clear which model they’re using for this. I assume whatever Bard is using, but who knows. This is relevant because depending on the intended experience the latency will matter. Overall it’s not a bad idea, but I do wonder what the mon…

People are wary about Google product launches because of a well documented[1] pattern of corporate behaviour[2] when it comes to either the project's planning and execution, resourcing, or long-term support. You don't have to agree with those comments, but they are legitimate concerns being expressed by people who have been burned enough times by the company that it has developed a degree[3] of notoriety[4] for it as…

To be fair, there are a lot of low-effort comments here to this effect. I agree with you and will happily upvote the first well-written comment pointing out Google's self-inflicted reputational damage, but the myriad one-line jabs aren't adding anything.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#118

Post by patates »

lolinder wrote: post #117
vogon_laureate wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are wary about Google product launches because of a well documented[1] pattern of corporate behaviour[2] when it comes to either the project's planning and execution, resourcing, or long-term support. You don't have to agree with those comments, but they are legitimate concerns being expressed by people who have been burned enough times by the company that it has developed a degree[3] of notoriety[4] for it as…

To be fair, there are a lot of low-effort comments here to this effect. I agree with you and will happily upvote the first well-written comment pointing out Google's self-inflicted reputational damage, but the myriad one-line jabs aren't adding anything.

I'd normally feel the same as you about the "one-line jabs" but in this case, IMHO they help to underline the fact that Google really did screw a lot of people over.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#119

Post by ignoramous »

bg24 wrote: post #100

“ A key difference between NotebookLM and traditional AI chatbots is that NotebookLM lets you “ground” the language model in your notes and sources. Source-grounding effectively creates a personalized AI that’s versed in the information relevant to you. Starting today, you can ground NotebookLM in specific Google Docs that you choose, and we’ll be adding additional formats soon.” While it sounds promising, the blog p…

> how is source-grounding different from giving a document to a model and generate insights?

You mean, fine-tuning? If so, grounding LLMs is cheaper: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/fasttrack-for-azure/g...

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#120

Post by patates »

endisneigh wrote: post #98
888666 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To warn users so they're aware that the lifespan of the product they're using may be very short, and therefore they may lose something they put a lot of investment in. It's empathy.

Shall every post for every company be spammed with irrelevant content about questionable actions conducted by said companies? Why not just submit a post about that directly and let that be the topic of discussion? Do you see how this entire thread is irrelevant to the submitted post? Do you see the problem?

> Do you see how this entire thread is irrelevant to the submitted post? Do you see the problem?

I see where you are coming from but for many of us, Google having killed dozens of such products is totally relevant.

Post reply on HN