Inventing things is no guarantee of success.
In spite of Xerox labs having pioneered the windowed OS GUI with mouse and Kodak having built the first portable mass-market digital camera.
They wouldn't have needed to enshittify or degrade their products to be successful with that, they just failed for other reasons.
Look what happened when Google tried to throw an LLM in to search. Absolute shitshow. That’s not ready to become any kind of product!
If they kill R&D now to focus on productizing something that is half baked, they will fail to develop those new inventions which might get us to AGI. When I worked at Google X Robotics I was hired on to the remnants of the last research team, which was dissolved six months after I started (I was moved to hardware test engineer). Our subteam really wanted to research multi-finger grippers but we got overruled, so the robot had to do everything with a two finger pinch gripper. Which is fine for research but absolutely unsuitable for real world tasks. It couldn’t even operate a spray bottle without special attachments and they thought it was going to clean people’s homes!
[1] I am sharing this one a lot lately but I’m very moved by Yann LeCun’s arguments about the limits of autoregressive approaches here. As a robotics engineer I have been dismayed at all the attention LLMs are getting despite serious limitations that make them generally unsuitable to solve some of the most important problems in robotics. https://youtu.be/1lHFUR-yD6I
This is exactly it. With the limitations ChatGPT is encountering around safety and hallucination, Google probably should've just said "we're working on something awesome - hold on" and kept plugging away before releasing, instead of ex-Product CEO making them release something now, even if half of the demo video is fake.
"Companies that mentioned AI in earnings saw their stocks rise 4.6% on average, a study from Wall Street Zen found."
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/ai-stock-mar...
Maybe I'm too tired, but I don't understand this sentence.
tbf, Ilya was on a VC podcast not at a tech conf.
> Well he’s not omniscient.
Neither is Yann (who has since proposed a different architecture / vision which is yet to take off), but my comment was meant to highlight a recent claim from another accomplished researcher in the field.
I meant to counter-balance OP's point in that there are other equally accomplished individuals who aren't swayed by Yann's (and others accelerationists like Andrew Ng) arguments or claims.
That said, I love your farm robots.