71–80 of 193 posts
I don't think DM is the only lab doing high-impact AI applications research, but they really seem to punch above their weight in it. Why is that or is it just that they have better technical marketing for their work?
In biology, Arc Institute is doing great novel things. Some pharmas like Genentech or GSK also have excellent AI groups.
I don't think DM is the only lab doing high-impact AI applications research, but they really seem to punch above their weight in it. Why is that or is it just that they have better technical marketing for their work?
This one seems like well done research but in no way revolutionary. People have been doing similar stuff for a while...
I’d pitch this paper as a very solid demonstration of the approach, and im sure it will lead to some pretty rapid developments (similar to what Rosettafold/alphafold did)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, of course, but I don't see any evidence from which to assume that they're picking "willy nilly."
Read back what you just wrote. It is literally "willy nilly". "Somethings are because of CEO, and some things are in spite of CEO" And it was "willy nilly" attributed that enshittification was because of CEO (how do we know? maybe it was CFO, or board) and Gemini because of Demis (how do we know? maybe it was CEO, or CFO, or Demis himself).
When I went to work at Google in 2008 I immediately advocated for spending significant resources on the biological sciences (this was well before DM started working on biology). I reasoned that Google had the data mangling and ML capabilities required to demonstrate world-leading results (and hopefully guide the way so other biologists could reproduce their techniques). We made some progress- we used exacycle to demo…
> Sundar is a really uninspiring leader I understand, but he made google a cash machine. Last quarter BEFORE he was CEO in 2015, google made a quarterly profit of around 3B. Q1 2025 was 35B. a 10x profit growth at this scale well, its unprecedented, the numbers are inspiring themselves, that's his job. He made mistakes sure, but he stuck to google's big gun, ads, and it paid off. The transition to AI started late but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sundar is a really uninspiring leader I understand, but he made google a cash machine. Last quarter BEFORE he was CEO in 2015, google made a quarterly profit of around 3B. Q1 2025 was 35B. a 10x profit growth at this scale well, its unprecedented, the numbers are inspiring themselves, that's his job. He made mistakes sure, but he stuck to google's big gun, ads, and it paid off. The transition to AI started late but…
He might have delivered a lot of revenue growth yea, but Google culture is basically gone. Internally we're not very far from Amazon style "performance management"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sundar is a really uninspiring leader I understand, but he made google a cash machine. Last quarter BEFORE he was CEO in 2015, google made a quarterly profit of around 3B. Q1 2025 was 35B. a 10x profit growth at this scale well, its unprecedented, the numbers are inspiring themselves, that's his job. He made mistakes sure, but he stuck to google's big gun, ads, and it paid off. The transition to AI started late but…
He delivered revenue growth by enshittifying Goog's products. Gemini is catching up because Demis is a boss and TPUs are a real competitive advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since we're on the topic of Microsoft, I'm sure you'd agree that Satya has done a phenomenal job. If you look objectively, what is Satya's accomplishments? One word - Azure. Azure is #2, behind AWS because Satya's effective and strategic decisions. But that's it. The "vibes" for Microsoft has changed, but MS hasnt innovated at all. Satya looked like a genius last year with OpenAI partnership, but it is becoming incre…
Microsoft has become a lot more friendly to open source under Satya. VSCode, GitHub, and WSL happened during his tenure, and probably wouldn't have happened under Ballmer. Turning the ship from a focus on protecting platform lock-in to meeting developers where they are is a huge accomplishment IMO.
This is all the 1st step of embrace and extinguish.
Naturally, the (AI-generated?) hero image doesn't properly render the major and minor grooves. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, of course, but I don't see any evidence from which to assume that they're picking "willy nilly."
Read back what you just wrote. It is literally "willy nilly". "Somethings are because of CEO, and some things are in spite of CEO" And it was "willy nilly" attributed that enshittification was because of CEO (how do we know? maybe it was CFO, or board) and Gemini because of Demis (how do we know? maybe it was CEO, or CFO, or Demis himself).
I see somebody saying something on here, I tend to assume that they have a reason for believing it.
If your opinions differ from theirs, you could talk about what you believe, instead of incorrectly saying that a CEO can only be responsible for everything or nothing that a company does.