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

Why did Google Brain exist?

moderndescartes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 328 posts

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#51

Post by light_hue_1 »

jeffbee wrote: post #23
light_hue_1 wrote: post #3

> The next obvious reason for Google to invest in pure research is for the breakthrough discoveries it has yielded and can continue to yield. As a rudimentary brag sheet, Brain gave Google TensorFlow, TPUs, significantly improved Translate, JAX, and Transformers. Except that these advances have made other companies an existential threat for Google. 2 years ago it was hard to imagine what could topple Google. Now a lo…

> Basically nothing has spun out of it to benefit Google Quite a ridiculous statement. Google has inserted ML all over their products. Maybe you just don't notice, to their credit. But for example the fact that YouTube can automatically generate subtitles for any written language from any spoken language is a direct outcome of Google ML research. There are lots of machine-inferred search ranking signals. Google Sheet…

> Quite a ridiculous statement. Google has inserted ML all over their products. Maybe you just don't notice, to their credit. But for example the fact that YouTube can automatically generate subtitles for any written language from any spoken language is a direct outcome of Google ML research. There are lots of machine-inferred search ranking signals. Google Sheets will automatically fill in your formulas, that's in-house ML research, too.

I noticed all the toy demos. None of these have provided Google with any competitive advantage over anyone.

For the investment, Google Brain has been a massive failure. It provided Google with essentially zero value. And helped create competitors.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#52

Post by jojosbuddy »

javajosh wrote: post #26
michaelrpeskin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/793/

That's a great xkcd, but there are 2 upsides to this arrogant approach. First, arrogance is a nerd-snipe maximizer. Second, there is a small chance you're absolutely right, and you've just obviated a whole field from first principles. It doesn't happen often, but when it does happen and there is no clout like "emporer's new clothes" clout. EDIT: The downside, of course, is that you appear arrogant, and people won't l…

Not laughing! /s (physicist here)

Actually most applied physicists like myself go down that path cause we're pretty efficient, lazy folk & skip through as fast as possible--I call it the principle of maximum laziness.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#53

Post by calrissian »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #30
marricks wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A lot of people, especially on hacker news, feel disdain for researchers of ethics, bias and fairness, as they are perceived as both holding technology back and profiting from advances in it (that they can then analyse and criticize).

I don't think you're necessarily wrong in your assesment about HN and AI enthusiasts, but also in this case I think it's more accurate to talk about a Twitter agitator and race-baiter [1], rather than a "researcher of ethics, bias and fairness".

[1] https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1651055495271137280?s...

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#54

Post by potatolicious »

asdfman123 wrote: post #46

My theory is that broadly, tech learned not to act like Microsoft in the 90s -- closed off, anti-competitive, unpopular -- but swung too far in the opposite direction. Google has been basically giving away technology for free, which was easy because of all the easy money. It's good for reputation and attracting the best talent. That is, until a competitor starts to threaten to overtake you with the technology you gav…

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 isn't giving it away, it's failing to exercise the technology itself in a compelling way. At any moment in time Google could have released ChatGPT (or some variation thereof), but they didn't.

I've made this point before - but Google's problems have little to do with how it's pursuing fundamental research, but everything to do with how it pursues its products. The failure to apply fundamental innovations that happened within its own halls is organizational.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#56

Post by asdfman123 »

potatolicious wrote: post #54
asdfman123 wrote: post #46

My theory is that broadly, tech learned not to act like Microsoft in the 90s -- closed off, anti-competitive, unpopular -- but swung too far in the opposite direction. Google has been basically giving away technology for free, which was easy because of all the easy money. It's good for reputation and attracting the best talent. That is, until a competitor starts to threaten to overtake you with the technology you gav…

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.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#58

Post by anonymouskimmer »

javajosh wrote: post #26
michaelrpeskin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/793/

That's a great xkcd, but there are 2 upsides to this arrogant approach. First, arrogance is a nerd-snipe maximizer. Second, there is a small chance you're absolutely right, and you've just obviated a whole field from first principles. It doesn't happen often, but when it does happen and there is no clout like "emporer's new clothes" clout. EDIT: The downside, of course, is that you appear arrogant, and people won't l…

> 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?

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#59

Post by khazhoux »

> 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 internal details private, even after he leaves. They could not be more clear about this when you join the company.

Why do people think it's OK to share like this? This isn't a whistleblowing situation -- he's just going for internet brownie points. It's just an attempt to squeeze a bit more personal benefit out of your (now-ended) employment.

Contractual/legal issues aside, I think this kind of post shows a lack of personal integrity (because he did sign a paper agreeing not to disclose info), and even a betrayal of former teammates who now have to deal with the fallout.

Re: Why did Google Brain exist?

#60

Post by erenyeager »

hintymad wrote: post #45
marricks wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Controvery of what? Did you read Gebru's paper? For instance, her calculation of carbon footprint of training BERT assumes that companies will train BERT 24x7. Gebru is a disgrace to the community because she always, I mean literally always, attacks her critics by motives. You think bias is a data problem? You're a bigot (See her dispute with LeCun). You disagree with my assessment on an ML model? You are white male…

Ok but the lack of underrepresented minorities in the field and the important role people like Gebru played in extending the political and status of minorities is ok to extinguish? We need more than just white male / Chinese male / Indian male monoculture “STEM lords”. This is already recognized in fields like medicine, where minorities treating minorities results in better outcomes and the greater push to open positions of status to minorities.
Post reply on HN