Google's True Moonshot • Hacker News Board

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#91

Post by fatherzine » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:09 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #77

terryf wrote: post #34

Is it possible that google will build the next great AI? Of course. But right now they really really seem to be failing at it. Maybe the core tech in gemini is great. But it's nowhere. Just as an anecdote, I tried to actually pay google for an AI product they claimed to have launched - the image generation, Imagen 2. And apparently, I can't. Even after tens of e-mails and a call with an account manager, the response…

Does anyone remember Google Video? It was a horrible experience. The upload process was a pain, and I think some approval was needed at some point, or you had to be sponsored by someone already on the service. Then Google bought Youtube. In the AI space it's unclear what/who they could buy -- OpenAI being obviously out of reach -- but it's possible they could find a good match.

mistral

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#92

Post by hattmall » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:09 PM UTC

wslh wrote: post #81

terryf wrote: post #34

Is it possible that google will build the next great AI? Of course. But right now they really really seem to be failing at it. Maybe the core tech in gemini is great. But it's nowhere. Just as an anecdote, I tried to actually pay google for an AI product they claimed to have launched - the image generation, Imagen 2. And apparently, I can't. Even after tens of e-mails and a call with an account manager, the response…

Everyone is in AI now and we are just finishing 2023. The next innovation(s) (dilemma(s)) could happen everywhere. Rephrasing Andreessen's quote: "AI is eating the world". This does not mean that we are close (or not) to AGI, it means that capital is flowing towards AI and AI has REAL applications. Just see what happened in Web3 with not so real applications (but uses). In the cybersecurity space I now see cybersecur…

What, in your opinion / experience happened with web3?

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#93

Post by fakedang » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:12 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #66

terryf wrote: post #34

Is it possible that google will build the next great AI? Of course. But right now they really really seem to be failing at it. Maybe the core tech in gemini is great. But it's nowhere. Just as an anecdote, I tried to actually pay google for an AI product they claimed to have launched - the image generation, Imagen 2. And apparently, I can't. Even after tens of e-mails and a call with an account manager, the response…

> This is why Microsoft is winning Spoken like someone who has never used bing chat. Its so terrible its funny.

Huh, not sure. I've found Bing chat to be actually useful compared to Google search. For some recent projects, Bing introduced me to a few very useful packages that I wouldn't have known even existed, if I had stuck to Google search. I've only seen Bing fail for my use cases when I drafted queries that I wanted it to fail: for example, asking some esoteric question on how to beat the Burmese 1st mission of Age of Empires in under 10 minutes. In most cases, Bing is actually a good enough replacement for a market research bullshitter, for cases where I'm looking for non-exact data.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#94

Post by intrasight » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:13 PM UTC

jvdvegt wrote: post #50

For anybody else expecting Google to start shooting stuff at the moon: don't bother reading, it's just about more AI.

True, but today the term "moonshot" can only be about AI.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#95

Post by jillesvangurp » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:19 PM UTC

rdsubhas wrote: post #86

Big companies drag themselves down – not because they can't innovate – but because they can't go "all in" into innovations which compete against their real cash cow. An AI assistant fundamentally hits at Google's gut: Search ad revenue. Yeah, Google can make dozens of AI demos. Are they truly ready to put Gemini as the default interaction model, pitting it against their search? Can they give super accurate answers to…

Their ad revenue is a local optimum. They could reach new highs with alternate business models but only at the cost of short term reduction in revenue from ads. And this is of course risky. So, they keep on dancing around the topic without ever committing to anything.

An additional problem they have is that running AI at scale is super expensive. Even for Google. Add to that legal risks, pressure from regulators in different countries, privacy concerns, copyright issues, etc. and you get a whole lot of risk and friction. Add to that the usual organizational infighting and politics and you pretty much have a company incapable of doing anything.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#96

Post by ur-whale » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:27 PM UTC

Undertaking that kind of focused, bold, visionary attack would first and foremost require to have a CEO with the same kind of attributes:bold, focused and visionary.

Unfortunately, ball-less wonder milquetoast Sundar has none of the above attributes.

He was hired 10 years ago not to rock the boat, but to stay the course, a strategy that requires a CEO with all the exact opposite attributes: meek, boring, visionless and all over the place.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#97

Post by ur-whale » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:32 PM UTC

resolutebat wrote: post #5

andrewstuart wrote: post #2

Google no longer seems relevant to anything much apart from what it’s already doing well… YouTube, search, android, maps.

Can you provide some context about why this is relevant to the article, which posits that Google is uniquely positioned to win the AI space and hence the future of computing? The potential payoff, though, is astronomical: a world with Pixie everywhere means a world where Google makes real money from selling hardware, in addition to services for enterprises and schools, and cloud services that leverage Google’s infras…

> which posits that Google is uniquely positioned to win the AI space and hence the future of computing?

They have been "uniquely positioned" as you put it to win the AI race for the past 15 years now.

And they have done exactly zilch (other than produce an OpenAI-wannabe fake video with Gemini a couple of weeks back).

I see no reason why that will change in any way.

Astronomical payoffs is not something Google is culturally capable of anymore, because they require risk taking, and strictly no one has any incentive to take any kind of risks at Google anymore.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#98

Post by hef19898 » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:33 PM UTC

gwicks56 wrote: post #88

hef19898 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, while this is usefull for others, I have zero need for any of this. Settings? I know where to find those. Setting alerts? Use the standard calendar and timer apps. Internet search? Type it. I make a point to not share my search history with anyobe, or any other data as much as possible. And I wont start doing so to enable some AI gadget I am more than happy to live without.

I think it will be more like: "Pixie, reply to that email for me" "Pixie, book that car service for me and remind them they promised a free brake fluid replacement" "Pixie order all the ingredients I need to make my wife her favourite dish" "Pixel, buy everyone in my family birthday presents" I will 100% pay for that capability, and as someone that uses GPT4 to basically do my job for me, it really does not seem that…

I won't let any AI read my e-mails, let alone reply to them. I discuss car services when I drop of the car at the workshop, and the workshop confirms the details. I don't want an AI to know anyones favorite dish, and delivery services suck for fresh ingredients anyway. And I think about presents before buying them, that is a crucial bit of gifting things to people, especially if you care about them.

By the way, if I would use ChatGPT for my job, let alone letting it do for me, I'd be fired, worst case go to jail. And even if not, what would prevent my employer from firing me anyway if a basically free to use web service can do it at the same level I can?

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#99

Post by mathattack » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:51 PM UTC

terryf wrote: post #34

Is it possible that google will build the next great AI? Of course. But right now they really really seem to be failing at it. Maybe the core tech in gemini is great. But it's nowhere. Just as an anecdote, I tried to actually pay google for an AI product they claimed to have launched - the image generation, Imagen 2. And apparently, I can't. Even after tens of e-mails and a call with an account manager, the response…

They just don’t understand selling to businesses in a way that Microsoft or Oracle does.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#100

Post by satyrnein » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:53 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #21

The one part of this thesis that I pretty strongly disagree with is the idea that people would prefer to have long, meandering voice conversations with an AI, compared to text. Just look at anyone under the age of 25 (35 maybe?) They can easily have long, meandering conversations with actual humans using voice, yet I see them go for text 9 times out of ten. As someone on the backside of middle age, I often find it pr…

Some potential "costs" of voice/video: it's (often) exclusive to one person, it's immediate, and it's easy to expose your own emotional state. In an emotionally fraught, developing situation, perhaps your nieces want to take it slow, check what their friends think, not let on that they're upset, etc.

This is all just speculation, I'm not really a texter, but I do find it interesting when limitations might turn out to be features.