Why A.I. Researchers at Google Got Desks Next to the Boss | Hacker News Reader

Why A.I. Researchers at Google Got Desks Next to the Boss

nytimes.com

19 pointsIntronExon16 comments

This reads like a piece of advertising.

In what way? Given the number of big company name drops, who is it an ad for?

I explained why in the previous submission of this article, this appears to be the work of a PR firm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16416420

It's not surprising they added additional sources, but it's likely Google or Facebook's, or even Overstock's, if they're hoping to be viewed on the same tier as Goog and FB.

It's pushing AI research buzz, in general, (while containing no actual news) which is pretty valuable to someone like Google, who markets themselves as "an AI company".

The responses to your assertion seem valid, and given that you don’t know which competing company is being advertised, that seems to support them even more.

As Graham's article explains, the goal is for your press hit to not look like an ad. I can't be 100% sure who's behind it, but, for example, it fits the classic submarine model if it's Overstock. Note that Graham specifically cites quoting "experts", and down in like third or fourth, you'll see the actual client get dropped.

> With trend stories, PR firms usually line up one or more "experts" to talk about the industry generally. In this case we get three: the NPD Group, the creative director of GQ, and a research director at Smith Barney. [5] When you get to the end of the experts, look for the client. And bingo, there it is: The Men's Wearhouse.

Google and Facebook could easily be considered "experts" in this field, and Overstock is definitely a place that doesn't come to mind when you think "AI researchers". This little submarine might be trying to plant the idea in peoples' heads that OLabs is a place to consider when they're looking to do AI research. You might not have thought of it before, but you might think of it now.

The article wasn't outwardly an ad for them, but it's maybe the only new information it inserted into your brain. The perfect submarine.

You could be right, but I see a problem in that you could just as easily be wrong. Worse, if I apply your standards to many other articles, I’m capable of obtaining the same ambiguous results.

Many other articles are also submarines. ;)

Twitch

Granted, but it’s the ability to distinguish them from others that seems to be the relatively hard part.

It's called the submarine.

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

I’m familiar with the article, but that fails to answer what I think was my reasonable question. It’s a bit of an empty thing to just dismiss a piece in the NYT as an ad based on... what?

Android can't work its way through structured data (open app -> perform function that is achieved in two or three touches in app -> narrate back the results). There is way too much hype in A.I.

It also lacks the ability to discern intention. If I am driving and ask for a location, it should be able to start navigation without having to be re-prompted. Things like this should be easy and yet I find myself having to spoon-feed the AI. Every. Single. Time. It's just really cumbersome and disappointing every time I try to use it.

Dupe of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16416294

I thought Goodfellow was in Toronto. Jeffrey Dean being a short walk away from the CEO is nothing surprising of course. These people are research institute directors basically, hardly researchers themselves, which is what the title makes it sound like

He's in San Francisco.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com