https://bard.google.com/ https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/tech/geoffrey-hinton-leaves-g... https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/13/google_lamda_sentient... https://www.wired.com/story/google-timnit-gebru-ai-what-real...
> We recently brought these two teams together into a single unit, Google DeepMind. Using the computational resources of Google, they’re focused on building more capable systems, safely and responsibly.
> This includes our next-generation foundation model, Gemini, which is still in training. Gemini was created from the ground up to be multimodal, highly efficient at tool and API integrations and built to enable future innovations, like memory and planning. While still early, we’re already seeing impressive multimodal capabilities not seen in prior models.
> Once fine-tuned and rigorously tested for safety, Gemini will be available at various sizes and capabilities, just like PaLM 2.
It sounds like this is the first "joint project" of the old DeepMind/Brain groups since the merger.
lmfao google can't host a fucking static page
At every I/O there is a "keynote" and a "developer keynote", and similarly there are business / product talks and developer-focused talks. In fact, they even create entirely separate playlists on YouTube for the dev/non-dev talks.
As a Staff Eng who leads and mentors engineers who live in a world where they have no choice but to use Google SDKs and services, I find many of the developer-focused talks invaluable for getting others in my team up to speed on what's new and what's coming soon. Most of these talks are given by engineers and involve concise code examples which quickly convey the gist of new functionality.
Which world is this? I’m genuinely interested not trying to be rude.
I'm pretty sure we could have gotten away with spending most of our time playing video games on the company's dime, if we had wanted. We probably would have been fired once someone found out, but that's pretty universal.
But the only reason why it worked out the way it did is because the "owner" of the team in question 1) sincerely believed in this approach, 2) had enough clout with the top management to make it stick.
does not imply
A (profitable) => ¬B (not a startup).
> ¬A (not profitable) => B (startup)
> does not imply
> A (profitable) => ¬B (not a startup)
does not imply that ¬A => B. In other words, the logical structure can be correct, but that does not mean the premises are themselves true. This is the difference between validity and soundness in formal logic [0].
In other words, our success was because we identified a critical missing piece in a profitable industry and built exactly what people were asking for, and more importantly, willing to pay for.
After that success (and a couple more after it), I refuse to ever build something without finding customers first. You have to build products people want, not try to convince people into believing they want your product.
I saw this headline and eyerolled. In 2010, I read the schedule/agenda and hype about what might be given to attendees. ALMOST signed up for the lottery.
As I addended to google's IoT with respect to other IoT vendors:
"It's just that Google adds completely rudderless leadership, its world famous utter disregard for customer support, and complete lack of commitment to the recipe."
Google I/O was cool when you could get early access to google glasses.
What do you get these days? Anything interesting? Or the latest Pixel (god, don't get me started, I am NEVER EVER EVER dropping more than $300 on an android phone again).
Anyway, back to the eyeroll. Wow, 10 years. Android is buggier and its app store laden with malware, copycats, predatory addictware, and bureaucracy. Android hardware is arguably even buggier than it was. Search is FAR FAR worse. Their self-driving is still a non-starter. The internet has turned into a dystopian wasteland and they are a not-insignificant party to it. No longer open, no longer even trying to not be evil.
Everything about google is worse today than it was 10 years ago. Does anybody actually want to work there for any reason besides money and resume eyecandy? Google the search is far worse than it was 10 years ago with maximum monetization policies. Advertising / information hoovering is a threat to democracy and perhaps human existence. The fourth estate / newspapers / journalism has been utterly hollowed out. It has directly enabled cartel and monopoly market consolidation. It is the shining example of locking out someone from the internet and providing no human contact for resolution. If it fails to dominate something with its horrid customer service and big brother creepy dominance, it strands people with little warning.
Anyway, have fun at Google I/O 2023 everyone!
Google no longer innovates or launches products of note. They throw ideas at the wall, like spaghetti, and hope things stick.
Perverse incentives create competing products, dead end projects, and invariably everything created winds up getting cancelled.
Google got drunk off of easy search ad revenue. Their founding leadership went off to do zeppelins and politicking. Now that golden goose looks like it may be cooked.
Google had the Bell Labs of AI research, but their ability to build product around it looks a lot more like IBM Watson.
Over the next half decade, their top tier talent will leave and get venture funding to do their own things with their own equity.
Yes, and whether they stick or not, they tear down the wall after 2-3 years because they seemingly still haven’t figured out how to internally incentivize KTLO/running stable products (other than a few flagship ones) rather than building shiny new things.
> As a Staff Eng who leads and mentors engineers who live in a world where they have no choice but to use Google SDKs and services, I find many of the developer-focused talks invaluable for getting others in my team up to speed on what's new and what's coming soon.
This sounds identical to IBM developer outreach. Or Ballmer-era Microsoft. Similar straightjackets, captive audience.
We'll see if Google can excite people about AI here, but I'm doubtful.
I once worked somewhere where the only people who actually went to WWDC where the IT admins and Apple fans,rather than developers.
From a developer perspective - online if so good now, why do you need to travel? ( unless you really want 1:1 with Apple/Google Devs ).
So the only people who travel end up being the people their for the 'event' and the 'one more thing' excitement.
Ah, look, I blogged about it: https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/archives/475
But back then Google was at the forefront of open standards and pushing the web forward. It was an exciting time for sure.
Far from the Google of today who can’t seem to run a project for more than a couple years.
You're right about I/O. The once-fat "invite adopters to conference" coffers seem to have been transferred to their Cloud Next conferences instead.
Only the Web talks are relevant, as the Web is now basically ChromeOS.