861–870 of 990 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has close to the best internal tooling in the industry for a decade or so. Then the Google engineers who joined Facebook missed it so much that they built a better replacement.
Replacement for what? Google has some good internal tools, mostly the older ones. They're lucky to be using React instead of Angular at Facebook though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dark clouds hovering over Google's AI game. It's not really clear what their gameplan is. From the outside, it looks like they're asleep at the wheel. Qwen/Deepseek/Kimi are crushing them from the cheap-and-open side, and they're not remotely competitive with Mythos/Sol or even plain-vanilla Opus on the "premium" tier. Gemini does actually have its uses, but they're very very marginal and niche. From day one everyb…
I don’t think it matters that much for Google. They need to not fall hopelessly behind, but I don’t think there’s a strong economic reason for Google to burn the kind of capex that the frontier labs are burning. Strategically, I think they’re probably doing better than OpenAI and Anthropic. The Gemini models are open, and they are what researchers are working with (see neuronpedia as an example). Over time, this will…
So, in last several months, all the prominent names Google lost: Demis Hassabis (technically still with google but these things are usually presented with a spin), Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Oriol Vinyals, Quoc Le, Noam Shazeer, John Jumper, Jonas Adler, Alexander Pritzel, David Silver, Denny Zhou, Fernando Pereira, Alex Turner And all the prominent names Google gained: NULL Combined with no gemini frontier GA relea…
To be fair, I think it's pretty hard as an AI company to secure your top worker right now unless you have a significant equity compensation. Once your name is known, and you can say you are/were "top AI researcher at OpenAI/Google/Anthropic", you can probably just make you own company and raise enough money that even if the company fails, you will probably make more off of it than what you would have at your previous…
The Gemini 3.5 Pro delay has been catastrophic for Google. I'm really curious what has gone on behind the scenes there. But missing out right as AI coding agents become genuinely deeply capable and useful is just an immense failure.
Surely the two leading candidates must be (a) the model is just not that good, or (b) it is misaligned in a pretty obvious way that can't be swept under the rug.
The fact that OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceXAI and 3 different Chinese companies were all able to train big models without these issues, yet Google could not, seems shocking.
So, in last several months, all the prominent names Google lost: Demis Hassabis (technically still with google but these things are usually presented with a spin), Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Oriol Vinyals, Quoc Le, Noam Shazeer, John Jumper, Jonas Adler, Alexander Pritzel, David Silver, Denny Zhou, Fernando Pereira, Alex Turner And all the prominent names Google gained: NULL Combined with no gemini frontier GA relea…
To be fair, I think it's pretty hard as an AI company to secure your top worker right now unless you have a significant equity compensation. Once your name is known, and you can say you are/were "top AI researcher at OpenAI/Google/Anthropic", you can probably just make you own company and raise enough money that even if the company fails, you will probably make more off of it than what you would have at your previous…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s with fascination with agi/superintelligence? It seems people working on it never had kids and just want to compensate for that. It’s a really horrible thing to try to “solve”.
I think death, and most extreme pain/suffering should be optional. Superintelligence, if done safely, lets us solve most of our problems.
I'm extremely bullish on our future ability to make autonomous death an option for anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not have chosen the word governing for that sentence but I'm not sure what fits best. Plundering, pillaging, gutting, ransacking, Rick rolling, despoilng, or perhaps molesting.
Trump is indeed effective at pillaging. The interesting thing is that Yuri explained and predicted (!) this in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErKTVdETpw
Why I left Google Deepmind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49067285
Google is now working together with Palantir: https://cloud.google.com/solutions/palantir
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess his big bet on world models didn’t pay off quickly enough
I think it's more than that. I made prediction in earlier 2024 that the main players of AI will stick with transformers while second class players will want to transcend it. The difference is admittedly a bit subtle but ai researchers would get it. I wrote it with mamba in mind back then, but google was still trying to come up with the 'next transformers' and one that can remember using weights and all that stuffs. Y…
If your goal is purely commercial, or time critical, then a product-based approach of squeezing all the juice out of LLMs makes sense.
If your goal is truly human-level AGI then this is more of an open-ended research endeavor, and timelines are hard to predict. Arguably we have only "captured lightning in a bottle" once in the last decade - the original 2017 attention paper - and so the timeline for a "few more Transformer-level breakthroughs" might more realistically be estimated in decades rather than years. You could argue that the application of RL to LLMs as a training method was a second "lightning in a bottle" but I don't think it changes the expected timeline of such discoveries by much.
The time criticality seems to have become a huge factor for those pursuing LLMs, and certainly for OpenAI and Anthropic, who regard it as a race.
It seems absurdly obvious (though many would disagree!) that LLMs alone are not going to achieve human-level intelligence and cognitive performance (using a slightly broader term there to include things like creativity, for those that might not consider that as part of intelligence).
If you compare a Transformer to a brain, then the best parallel is that a Transformer is functionally similar - in being a prediction engine - to part of our cortex, but of course that means ignoring the other half our cortex - the feedback paths that enable continual learning, which in turn supports creativity.
Of course people will probably respond "you don't need flapping wings to fly", but if you want to fly you do need SOME way of doing it, so brain comparisons are still valuable... If you look at our brain architecture and identify all the components and connections that have no equivalent in a Transformer, and if the goal is human-level capability, then you do need to understand what each of those brain components achieve functionally, and have SOME way of providing that functionality in your LLM+ or whatever you call it. LLMs' lack of any functional equivalent to our cortex's feedback paths - lack of continual learning - has been recognized as one major functional deficit, but there are probably half a dozen others too, reflecting the multiple "Transformer level" breakthoughs that Hassabis notes are needed.
While you don't need flapping wings to fly, you do need to invent the airplane, and even after 100+ years of airplane advances we've yet to build an airplane even remotely as capable as what some birds and insects are able to achieve.
Maybe 2017 was the Wright Bros moment where humans first learnt to do some of what our brains can do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno if it's a sound strategy that involves repeatedly telling investors [1] and employees [2] over multiple quarters that you are desperate for compute, including leaving a triple-digit billion backlog on the table [3], and then spending so much on CapEx that you have your first negative cash flow quarter ever and taking the inevitable hit to the stock [4], while turning away a large paying customer (who also hap…
Backlog meaning RPO over 5 years. It’s not as if they would be able to collect 250B today from OpenAI and Anthropic if they were to have that compute. In any case, my point is that the SpaceX deal specifically likely has ulterior motives.
My point is that an ulterior motive is not necessary to assume when all their actions and statements point to them being severely crunched for compute.
I mean sure, if they had a choice between say, CoreWeave and SpaceX, they’d choose the latter for the nice bump to SpaceX’s financials and their stake… but not just for that, not when it contributes to their cash flow turning negative and their own stock taking a hit.