161–170 of 258 posts
It's pretty crazy to think that Google is not OpenAI today, they had deep mind and an army of PHDs early on.
Well at the time before Microsoft got involved it was sort of an unspoken rule among the AI community to be open and not release certain models to the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not 100% sure I agree... Google is an ad company at the end of the day. Google is still making obscene amount of money with ads. Currently Gen AI is a massive expense in training and running and is only looking like it may harm future ad revenue (yet to be seen). Meanwhile OpenAI has not surpassed that critical threshold where they dominate the market with a moat and become a trillion dollar company. It is typica…
> It is typically very hard for a company to change what they actually do Microsoft started out selling BASIC runtimes. Then they moved into operating systems. Then they moved into Cloud. Satya seems to be putting his money where his mouth is and working hard to transition the company to AI now. Apple has likewise undergone multiplet transformations over the decades. However Google has the unique problem that their m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't quite agree on this one. While I think that Musk choices to go full vision when he did was foulish because he made his product worse, his main point is not wrong: human do drive well while using mostly vision. Assuming you can replicate the thought process of human driver using AI, I don't see why you could not create a self-driving car using only vision. That's also where I would see transformers or another…
> As a human, it would be very difficult to drive a car just looking at sensor data. What is vision if not sensor data?? Our brains have evolved to efficiently process and interpret image data. I don't see why from-scratch neural network architectures should ever be limited to the same highly specific input type.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conflating illegal and legal immigration is not a useful contribution to this conversation.
The phrasing was "welcoming to immigrants", not "welcoming to the ever shrinking definition of good immigrants established by a bunch of octogenarian plutocrats". "Illegal" is a concept - it's not conflating to assume that it's not the bedrock of the way people think.
Illegal immigrant is pretty well defined, an immigrant that didn't come through the legal means. The people hired by Google are probably not illegal immigrants.
And none of them still work for Google. It’s truly baffling that Google’s CEO still has a job after how badly he fumbled on AI.
I'm not 100% sure I agree... Google is an ad company at the end of the day. Google is still making obscene amount of money with ads. Currently Gen AI is a massive expense in training and running and is only looking like it may harm future ad revenue (yet to be seen). Meanwhile OpenAI has not surpassed that critical threshold where they dominate the market with a moat and become a trillion dollar company. It is typica…
> Not only were the authors all Google employees, they also worked out of the same offices. Subtle plug for return-to-office. In-person face-to-face collaboration (with periods of solo uninterrupted deep focus) probably is the best technology we have for innovation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would have gone much better for Google if the Brain team had been permitted to apply their work, but they were repeatedly blocked on stated grounds of AI safety and worries about impacting existing business lines through negative PR. I think this is probably the biggest missed business opportunity of the past decade, and much of the blame for losing key talent and Google's head start in LLMs ultimately resides wit…
They should have been spun out with a few billion dollars budget, no oversight, and Google having 90% (or some other very high %) ownership and rights of first purchase to buy them back. It is a successful model that has worked again and again to escape the problem of corporate bureaucracy.
Transformer == Modern AI? Wow, I dont know where should I start My mind literally stuck at the absurdity
It's 2024; do we really have to point out the fact that publications take liberties with headlines? It's been that way forever. Besides that, are you denying that transformers are the fundamental piece behind all the AI hype today? That's the point of the article. I think the fact that a mainstream publication is writing about the Transformers paper is awesome.
It's pretty crazy to think that Google is not OpenAI today, they had deep mind and an army of PHDs early on.
The problem is that chatting with an LLM is extremely disruptive to their business model and it's difficult for them to productize without killing the golden goose.
But they are probably using various techniques in analyses, embeddings, "canned" answers to queries, and so on.
And none of them still work for Google. It’s truly baffling that Google’s CEO still has a job after how badly he fumbled on AI.
He was too distracted with all the other things going on under his watch. He spent too much time trying to convince rank and file that it's OK to do business with customers they don't like, trying to ensure arbitrary hiring goals were made, and appeasing the internal activists that led protests and pressured to exit people that didn't fall in line. This is why the CEO of Coinbase sent the memo a few years back statin…
Humans are more than their companies' mission, and your freedom to exercise your political views on how companies should be run inherently relies on this principle, too. So your argument is fundamentally a hypocrites projection.