How Do You Know You Have Been Fired? 700 Hundred Words about People Skills
January 26, 2023
I read “Some Google Employees Didn’t Realize They Were Laid Off Until Their Badges Wouldn’t Let Them into the Office.” The write up reports in the manner of an person learning something quite surprising:
One laid-off Google employee, a software engineer who requested anonymity to speak freely, told Insider that he witnessed one of his co-workers repeatedly try to scan his employee badge to get into Google’s Chelsea, New York office, only for the card reader to turn red and deny him entry.
Yep. Code Red. Badge denied light Red. Google management Red Faced? Nah. Just marketing and a few others. No big deal.
How is Googzilla supposed to fire people? Get one of the crack People People to talk face-to-face with a Google wizard? Ain’t happening, kiddo. Perhaps a chill video call to which the newly unemployed super brains can connect and watch a video explaining that your are now officially non-essential. The good news, of course, is that one can say, “I am a Xoogler. I will start a venture fund. Or, I will invent the next great app powered by ChatGPT. Or, Mom I will be moving in next week. I’ve been fired.
Let’s go back in time. How about the mid 1970s when the US government urged buildings housing work deemed sensitive to implement better security systems. At the time, many buildings used a person sitting behind a big desk with a bunch of paper. One would state one’s name and the person one wanted to visit face-to-face. I told you we were going back in time. The person at the desk would use a telephone handset connected to a big console and call the extension of the person whom one wanted to meet. Then that person would send someone down to escort the outsider to a suitable meeting room. (Don’t ask about the measures in place in the meeting room, please.)
An employee would show an official badge, typically connected to an item of clothing or hanging from a lanyard. The person behind the desk would smile in recognition, push a button, and a gate would open. The person with the badge would walk to the elevators and ride to the appropriate floor. There are variations, of course.
But the main idea is that this electronic smart security was not in place. When a person was to be fired, that person would typically be in a cube or a manager’s office. The blow was delivered in person, sometimes with a bloodhound’s sad look or a bit of a smile that suggested the manager delivering the death blow was having fun.
Then the revolution. The building in which I worked toward the end of the 1970s got the electric key card thing. The day after that system was installed, my boss who ran the standalone unit of a blue chip consulting firm decided to fire people by disabling the person’s key card. Believe it or not, the Big Boss, the head of what was then called Human Resources, and I drove from the underground parking garage to the No Parking zone in front of the building and watched as people found their key card had been disabled.
My recollection is that because the firm had RIFed a couple of hundred people earlier in the week, we could observe the former blue chippers reaction. It was interesting. The most amazing thing is that the head of Human Resources put in place a procedure to terminate people via a phone call, allow them to return to the building and enter with a security escort to retrieve pictures of the wives, girl friends, animals, boats, or swimming trophy. Then the person could put the personal effects in a banker’s box and the escort would get the person out of the building. The escort then collected the dead key card.
That’s humane. What’s interesting is that Google’s management team ignored the insight out Human Resources’ person had: Find a way to minimize the craziness outside of the building. Avoid creating a news event on a busy street in Washington, DC. Figure out a procedure that eliminates, “Can you send me the picture of my dog Freddy?” to a person still working at the blue chip outfit.
But Google. Nope. Now it’s headline time and public exposure of the firm’s management excellence.
Stephen E Arnold, January 26, 2023
Googzilla Squeezed: Will the Beastie Wriggle Free? Can Parents Help Google Wiggle Out?
January 25, 2023
How easy was it for our prehistoric predecessors to capture a maturing reptile. I am thinking of Googzilla. (That’s my way of conceptualizing the Alphabet Google DeepMind outfit.)
This capturing the dangerous dinosaur shows one regulator and one ChatGPT dev in the style of Normal Rockwell (who may be spinning in his grave). The art was output by the smart software in use at Craiyon.com. I love those wonky spellings and the weird video ads and the image obscuring Next and Stay buttons. Is this the type of software the Google fears? I believe so.
On one side of the creature is the pesky ChatGPT PR tsunami. Google’s management team had to call Google’s parents to come to the garage. The whiz kids find themselves in a marketing battle. Imagine, a technology that Facebook dismisses as not a big deal, needs help. So the parents come back home from their vacations and social life to help out Sundar and Prabhakar. I wonder if the parents are asking, “What now?” and “Do you think these whiz kids want us to move in with them.” Forbes, the capitalist tool with annoying pop ups, tells one side of the story in “How ChatGPT Suddenly Became Google’s Code Red, Prompting Return of Page and Brin.”
On the other side of Googzilla is a weak looking government regulator. The Wall Street Journal (January 25, 2023) published “US Sues to Split Google’s Ad Empire.” (Paywall alert!) The main idea is that after a couple of decades of Google is free, great, and gives away nice tchotchkes US Federal and state officials want the Google to morph into a tame lizard.
Several observations:
- I find it amusing that Google had to call its parents for help. There’s nothing like a really tough, decisive set of whiz kids
- The Google has some inner strengths, including lawyers, lobbyists, and friends who really like Google mouse pads, LED pins, and T shirts
- Users of ChatGPT may find that as poor as Google’s search results are, the burden of figuring out an “answer” falls on the user. If the user cooks up an incorrect answer, the Google is just presenting links or it used to. When the user accepts a ChatGPT output as ready to use, some unforeseen consequences may ensue; for example, getting called out for presenting incorrect or stupid information, getting sued for copyright violations, or assuming everyone is using ChatGPT so go with the flow
Net net: Capturing and getting the vet to neuter the beastie may be difficult. Even more interesting is the impact of ChatGPT on allegedly calm, mature, and seasoned managers. Yep, Code Red. “Hey, sorry to bother you. But we need your help. Right now.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2023
Responding to the PR Buzz about ChatGPT: A Tale of Two Techies
January 24, 2023
One has to be impressed with the PR hype about ChatGPT. One can find tip sheets for queries (yes, queries matter… a lot), ideas for new start ups, and Sillycon Valley pundits yammering on podcasts. At an Information Industry Association meting in Boston, Massachusetts, a person whom I think was called Marvin or Martin Wein-something made an impassioned statement about the importance of artificial intelligence. I recall his saying, “It is happening. Now.”
Marvin or Martin made that statement which still sticks in my mind in 1982 or so. That works out to 40 years ago.
What strikes me this morning is the difference between the response of Facebook and Google. This is a Tale of Two Techies.
In the case of Google, it is Red Alert time. The fear is palpable among the senior managers. How do I know? I read “Google Founders Return As ChatGPT Threatens Search Business.” I could trot out some parallels between Google management’s fear and the royals threatened by riff raff. Make no mistake. The Googlers have quantum supremacy and the DeepMind protein and game playing machine. I recall reading or being told that Google has more than 20 applications that will be available… soon. (Wasn’t that type of announcement once called vaporware?) The key point is that the Googlers are frightened, and like Disney, have had to call the team of Brin and Page to revivify the thinking about the threat to the search business. I want to remind you that the search business was inspired by Yahoo’s Overture approach. Google settled some litigation and the rest is history. Google became an alleged monopoly and Yahoo devolved into a spammy email service.
And what about Facebook? I noted this article: “ChatGPT Is Not Particularly Innovative and Nothing Revolutionary, Says Meta’s Chief AI Scientist.” The write up explains that Meta’s stance with regard to the vibe machine ChatGPT is “meh.” I think Meta or the Zuckbook does care, but Meta has a number of other issues to which the proud firm must respond. Smart software that seems to be a Swiss Army knife of solutions is “nothing revolutionary.” Okay.
Let’s imagine we are in college in one of those miserable required courses in literature. Our assignment is to analyze the confection called the Tale of Two Techies. What’s the metaphorical pivot for this soap opera?
Here’s my take:
- Meta is either too embarrassed, too confused, or too overwhelmed with on-going legal hassles to worry too much about ChatGPT. Putting on the “meh” is good enough. The company seems to be saying, “We don’t care too much… at least in public.”
- Google is running around with its hair on fire. The senior management team’s calling on the dynamic duo to save the day is indicative of the mental short circuits the company exhibits.
Net net: Good, bad, or indifferent ChatGPT makes clear the lack of what one might call big time management thinking. Is this new? Sadly, no.
Stephen E Arnold, January 24, 2023
Google Search: A Hellscape? Nah, the Greasy Mess Is Much Bigger
January 23, 2023
I read “Google vs. ChatGPT Told by Aglio e Olio.”
The write up makes it clear that the author is definitely not Googley. Let’s look at a handful of statements and then consider them in the context of the greasy stuff and, of course, the crackling hellscape analogy. Imagine a hellscape on Shoreline Drive. I never noticed pools of flame, Beelzebug hanging in the parking lot, or people in chains being walked by one of Satan’s pals. Maybe I was not sufficiently alert?
How about this statement:
A single American company operating as a bottleneck behind the world’s information is a dangerous, and inefficient proposition and a big theme of the Margins is that monopolies are bad so it’s also on brand.
After 25 years, the light bulb clicked on and the modern Archimedes has discovered the secret to Googzilla. I recall the thrill of the Yahoo settlement and the green light for the initial public offering. I recall the sad statements of Foundem, which “found” itself going nowhere fast in search results. I recall a meeting in Paris in which comments about the difficulty of finding French tax form links in Google.fr search results. I remember the owner of a major Web site shouting at lunch about his traffic dropping from two million per month to 200,000. Ah, memories. But the reason these anecdotes come to my mind is a will group of people who found free and convenient more valuable than old-fashioned research. You remember. Lycos, libraries, conversations, and those impedimenta to actual knowledge work.
Also, how about this statement?
I am assuming the costs and the risk I’ve mentioned above has been what’s been making Google keep its cards closer to its chest.
Ah, ha. Google is risk averse. As organization become older and larger, what does one expect. I think of Google like Tom Brady or Christiano Ronaldo. Google is not able to accept the fact that it is older, has a bum knee, and has lost some of its fangs. Remember the skeleton of the dinosaur in front of one of Google’s buildings. It was, as I recall, a Tyrannosaurus Rex. But it was missing a fang or two. Then the weather changed, and the actual dino died. Google is not keeping cards closer to its chest; Google does not know what to do. Regulators are no longer afraid to fine the big reptile again and again. Googlers become Xooglers and suggest that the company is losing the zip in its step. Some choose to compete and create a for fee search system. Good luck with that! Looking at the skeleton, those cards could fall through the bones and fall, scattered on the concrete.
And what about this statement?
the real reason Google is at risk that thanks to their monopoly position, the folks over at Mountain View have left their once-incredible search experience degenerate into a spam-ridden, SEO-fueled hellscape.
Catchy. Search engine optimization, based on my observations of the Google’s antics, was a sure-fire way to get marketers into dancing the Google hand jive. Then when SEO failed (as it usually would), those SEO experts became sales professionals for Google advertising and instructors in the way to create Web sites and content shaped to follow the Google jazz band.
Net net: The Google is big, and it is not going anywhere quickly. But the past of Google is forgotten by many but it includes a Google Glass attempted suicide, making babies in the legal department, and a heroin overdose on a yacht. Ah, bad search. What about a deeper look? Nah, just focus on ChatGPT, the first of many who will now probe the soft underbelly of Googzilla. Oh, sorry, Googzilla is a skeleton. The real beast is gone.
Stephen E Arnold, January 23, 2023
Google PR: An Explainer about Smart Software
January 19, 2023
One of Google’s big wizards packs a brain with the impact of MK 7 16? 50 caliber gun. Boom. Boom. Boom.
Google does “novel” cats. What does Chess.com’s Mittens have to say about these felines? Perhaps, Mittens makes humans move. Google makes “novel” cats sort of move. © Google, 2023.
Jeff Dean has trained his intellectual weapons on a certain viral star in the smart software universe. “Google Research, 2022 & Beyond: Language, Vision and Generative Models.” The main point of the essay / blog post / PR salvo is that Google has made transformational advances. Great things are coming from the Google.
The explanation of the hows of the great things consume about 7,000 words. For Google, that’s the equivalent of a digital War and Peace with a preface written by Henry James.
Here’s a passage which I circled in three different Googley colors:
We are working towards being able to create a single model that can understand many different modalities fluidly — understanding what each modality represents in context — and then actually generate different modes in that context. We’re excited by progress towards this goal! For example, we introduced a unified language model that can perform vision, language, question answering and object detection tasks in over 100 languages with state-of-the-art results across various benchmarks. In future applications, people can engage more senses to get computers to do what they want — e.g., “Describe this image in Swahili.” We’ve shown that on-device multi-modal models can make interacting with Google Assistant more natural. And we’ve demonstrated models that can, in various combinations, generate images, video, and audio controlled by natural language, images, and audio. More exciting things to come in this space!
Notice the phrase “progress towards this goal.” Notice the example “Describe this image in Swahili.” Notice the exclamation mark. Google is excited.
The write up includes Google’s jargonized charts and graphs; for example, “Preferred Metric Delta” and “SuperGLUE Score.” There is a graphic explaining multi-axis attention mechanism. And more.
Enough “catty” meta-commentary.
Here are several observations:
- Artificial intelligence is a fruit basket of methods, math, and malarkey. The fact that Google wants to pursue AI responsibly sounds good. What’s “responsible” mean? What’s artificial intelligence? These are difficult questions, and ones that are not addressed in the quasi-academic blog essay. Google has to sell advertising to keep the lights on and the plumbing in tip top shape… mostly. Seven thousand words is public relations, content marketing, and a response to the wild and crazy hyperbole about OpenAI changing the world. Okay, maybe after the lawyers, the regulators, the content copyright holders have figured out what is going on inside the allegedly open black boxes.
- If the reports from Davos are semi-accurate, Microsoft’s tie up with OpenAI and the idea of putting ChatGPT in Word makes me wonder if Microsoft Bob and Microsoft Clippy will return, allegedly smarter than before. Microsoft is riding a marketing wave and hoping to make money.
- Google is burdened with the albatross of Dr. Timnit Gebru and others who were transformed into former Googlers. What about Dr. Gebru’s legitimate concerns about baked in bias. When one sucks in content, the system does not know that content objects are more or less “better,” “right,” or distorted due to a spidering time out due to latency. The fact remains that Google terminated people who attempted to point out some foundational flaws in what the Google was doing.
Net net: The write up does not talk about Forward Forward methods. The write up does not talk about the likelihood that regulators in the European Union will be interested in what and how Google moves forward. Google is in the regulatory spot light. Will those regulators believe that Google can change its spots like the “novel” cats in the illustration? ChatGPT is something to get venture funders, entrepreneurs, and Davos executives to think positive thoughts. That does not mean the system will deliver. What about Mr. Brin’s self driving car prediction or the clever idea of solving death? Google may have to emulate in part Tesla, a company which allegedly faked the hands-off, full self-driving demo of its smart software. Seven thousand words means one thing to me:
‘The Google doth protest too much, methinks.’ Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2. (I think Shakespeare put Google in a foul paper and some busybody inserted the name Gertrude.)
Boom, boom, boom.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2023
Grogu: Another Google Me Too
January 18, 2023
Google in my mind is associated with the breakthrough slam dunk home run idea of Forward Forward smart software “learning.” Yep, forward forward. Catchy.
If the information in “Google Reportedly Working on Grogu Tracker to Compete with Apple’s AirTags” is on the money, Apple’s Tim Cook may have to worry about more than cancelled headsets and reduced pay. The write up states:
Google is reportedly developing its own tracking accessory… The tracker is said to be in development under the codename “Grogu” — a reference to the popular Star Wars series “The Mandalorian” — alongside the alternate names “GR10” and “Groguaudio.” The only other tidbits that have been uncovered so far suggest that the Nest team is seemingly taking lead on the development and that the tracker may be available in multiple colors.
Now about the timing of the me-too. The Tile Bluetooth tracker showed up in 2016. Then Apple’s AirTag became available five years later. Now the Google is allegedly preparing its me too Grogu for release in 2023 or maybe 2024.
Several observations:
- Google’s me too products have not gained the revenue momentum of its Yahoo, GoT0, Overture inspired online advertising “innovation”
- I thought Google was engaged in Code Red, an effort to respond to ChatGPT with the super better greater smart software. Are trackers, which I think of as airline harassment devices and stalker tools, a priority at the online ad outfit?
- Acquisition and imitation may be competing for the Number One way for the Google to come up with great ideas.
Maybe Grogu, the baby Yoda, will use the force to neutralize the buzz about ChatGPT? Luke, Luke, use the Force.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2023
Google Project Teaches Code to Write Itself
January 18, 2023
Google may have an opportunity to demonstrate how its smart software can deal with the upstart ChatGPT. Google has software that can write more smart software. Imagine. Google “good enough” code to deliver good enough software for good enough search. Maybe I should say, “Once good enough?”
Ever conscious of its bottom line, Google knows saving money on resources is as good as raking in ad dollars. To that end, Yahoo Finance reveals, “Google Has a Secretive Project that Could Reduce the Need for Human Engineers.” Goodbye, pesky payroll. That software does not protest management decisions may be just a side benefit. Writer Jordan Parker Erb reveals:
“The project is part of a broader push by Google into ‘generative AI’ — and it could have profound implications for the company’s future and developers who write code. Generative AI, a tech that uses algorithms to create images, videos, and more, has recently become the hottest thing in Silicon Valley. In this case, the goal is to reduce the need for humans to write and update code, while maintaining code quality. Doing so could greatly impact the work of human engineers in the future. ‘The idea was: how do we go from one version to the next without hiring all these software engineers?’ said a person familiar with the project when it was at X, the company’s moonshot unit.”
According to the brief write-up, the project was called “Pitchfork” while at X. Perhaps not the most sensitive name to workers concerned with being flung out the door. No wonder the company has not trumpeted its existence. The project has since moved to Google Labs, a shift Erb notes reveals its importance to Google execs. The sooner it can be rid of those vexing human employees, the better.
And the pitchfork? A potentially dangerous tool.
Cynthia Murrell, January 10, 2023
Google, Take Two Aspirin and One AlkaSeltzer: It Is Buzz Time for ChatGPT
January 17, 2023
What do you do when the “trust” outfit Thomson Reuters runs a story with this headline? “Davos 2023: CEOs Buzz about ChatGPT-Style AI at World Economic Forum.” If you are like me, you think, “Meh.”
But what if you are a Google / DeepMind wizard?
Now consider this headline: “Google’s Muse Model Could Be the Next Big Thing for Generative AI.” If you are like me, you think, “Sillycon Valley PR.”
But what if you are an OpenAI or Microsoft brainiac?
In terms of reach, I think the Reuters’ story will be diffused to a broader business audience. The subject is something perceived as magnetic. Any carpetlander can get an associate to demonstrate ChatGPT outputting a search result via You.com or some other knowledge product from the numerous demos available with a mouse click.
But to see the Google Muse story, one has to follow a small number of Sillycon Valley outlets. And what if the carpetlander wants to see a demonstration of the magical, super effective Muse? Yeah, use your imagination.
Perhaps Google and its ineffable search team may want to crunch on another couple of aspirin and get some of that chewable antacid stuff. It is going to be a long PR day at Davos.
One doesn’t have to be a business maven to understand that ChatGPT is a nice subject when the options at Davos are war, plummeting demand for some big buck commodities, Germany’s burning lignite, China’s Covid and Taiwan fixation, and similar economically interesting topics.
What will CEO and Davos attendees take away from the ChatGPT buzz? My experience suggests some sort of action, even it is nothing more than investigating whether the technology can deal with pesky customer support inquiries.
And where is Google amidst this buzz? Google has the forward forward, next big thing. Google has academic papers which point out the weaknesses of non Google methods. Google has Muse or at least a news release story about Muse.
Will OpenAI and ChatGPT have legs? Who knows. Good bad or indifferent, ChatGPT has buzz, lots of it. I know because the “trust” outfit says ChatGPT will “transform” the security minded Microsoft. Who knew?
Thus, at this moment in time, Google may become a good customer for over-the-counter headache remedies and AlkaSeltzer. Remember that jingle’s lyrics?
Plop plop, fizz fizz
Oh, what a relief it is.
Maybe ChatGPT will just fade away like hangover or the tummy ache from eating the whole thing? Is it my imagination or is Microsoft chowing down on croissants whilst explaining what ChatGPT will do for its enterprise customers?
I will consult my “muse.” Oh, sorry, not available.
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2023
Google and Its PR Response to the ChatGPT Buzz Noise
January 16, 2023
A crazy wave is sweeping through the technology datasphere. ChatGPT, OpenAI, Microsoft, Silicon Valley pundits, and educators are shaken, not stirred, into the next big thing. But where is the Google in this cyclone bomb of smart software? The craze is not for a list of documents matching a user’s query. People like students and spammers are eager for tools that can write, talk, draw pictures, and code. Yes, code more good enough software, by golly.
In this torrential outpouring of commentary, free demonstrations, and venture capitalists’ excitement, I want to ask a simple question: Where’s the Google? Well, to the Google haters, the GOOG is in panic mode. RED ALERT, RED ALERT.
From my point of view, the Google has been busy busy being Google. Its head of search Prabhakar Raghavan is in the spotlight because some believe he has missed the Google bus taking him to the future of search. The idea is that Googzilla has been napping before heading to Vegas to follow the NCAA basketball tournament in incorrect. Google has been busy, just not in a podcast, talking heads, pundit tweeting way.
Let’s look at two examples of what Google has been up to since ChatGPT became the next big thing in a rather dismal economic environment.
The first is the appearance of a articles about the forward forward method for training smart software. You can read a reasonably good explanation in “What Is the “Forward-Forward” Algorithm, Geoffrey Hinton’s New AI Technique?” The idea is that some of the old-school approaches won’t work in today go-go world. Google, of course, has solved this problem. Did the forward forward thing catch the attention of the luminaries excited about ChatGPT? No. Why? Google is not too good at marketing in my opinion. ChatGPT is destined to be a mere footnote. Yep, a footnote, probably one in multiple Google papers like Understanding Diffusion Models: A Unified Perspective (August 2022). (Trust me. There are quite a few of these papers with comments about the flaws of ChatGPT-type software in the “closings” or “conclusions” to these Google papers.)
The second is the presentation of information about Google’s higher purpose. A good example of this is the recent interview with a Googler involved in the mysterious game-playing, protein-folding outfit called DeepMind. “DeepMind’s CEO Helped Take AI Mainstream. Now He’s Urging Caution” does a good job of hitting the themes expressed in technical papers, YouTube video interviews, and breezy presentations at smart software conferences. This is a follow on to Google’s talking with an MIT researcher Lex Fridman about the Google engineer who thought the DeepMind system was a person and a two hour chat with the boss of DeepMind. The CEO video is at this link.
I want to highlight three points from this interview/article.
[A] Let’s look at this passage from the Time Magazine interview with the CEO of DeepMind:
Today’s AI is narrow, brittle, and often not very intelligent at all. But AGI, Hassabis believes, will be an “epoch-defining” technology—like the harnessing of electricity—that will change the very fabric of human life. If he’s right, it could earn him a place in history that would relegate the namesakes of his meeting rooms to mere footnotes.
I interpret this to mean that Google has better, faster, cheaper, and smarter NLP technology. Notice the idea of putting competitors in “mere footnotes.” This is an academic, semi-polite way to say, “Loser.”
[B] DeepMind alleged became a unit of Alphabet Google for this reason:
Google was “very happy to accept” DeepMind’s ethical red lines “as part of the acquisition.”
Forget the money. Think “ethical red lines.” Okay, that’s an interesting concept for a company which is in the data hoovering business, sells advertising, has a bureaucratic approach I heard described as described as slime mold, and is being sued for assorted allegations of monopolistic behavior in several countries.
[C] The Time Magazine article includes this statement:
Back at DeepMind’s spiral staircase, an employee explains that the DNA sculpture is designed to rotate, but today the motor is broken. Closer inspection shows some of the rungs of the helix are askew.
Interesting choice of words: “The motor is broken” and “askew.” Is this irony or just the way it is when engineering has to be good enough and advertising powers the buzzing nervous system of the company?
From my point of view, Google has been responding to ChatGPT with academic reminders that the online advertising outfit has a better mousetrap. My thought is that Google knew ChatGPT would be a big deal. That realization sparked the attempt by Google to answer questions with cards and weird little factoids related to the user’s query. The real beef or “wood behind” the program is the catchy forward forward campaign. How is that working out? I don’t have a Google T shirt that spells out Forward Forward. Have you seen one? My research suggests that Google wants to corner the market on low cost training data. Think Snorkel. Google pushes synthetic data because it is not real and, therefore, cannot be dragged into court over improper use of Web-accessible content. Google, I believe, wants to become the Trader Joe’s of off-the-shelf training data and ready-to-run smart software models. The idea has been implemented to some degree at Amazon’s AWS as I recall.
Furthermore, Google’s idea of a PR blitz is talking with an MIT researcher Lex Fridman. Mr. Fridman interviewed the the Google engineer (now a Xoogler) who thought the DeepMind system was a person and sort of alive. Mr. Fridman also spoke with the boss of DeepMind about smart software. (The video is at this link.) The themes are familiar: Great software, more behind the curtains, and doing good with Go and proteins.
Google faces several challenges with its PR effort to respond to ChatGPT:
- I am of the opinion that most people, even those involved in smart software, are not aware that Google has been running a PR and marketing campaign to make clear superiority of its system and method. No mere footnote for the Google. We do proteins. We snorkel. We forward forward. The problem is that ChatGPT is everywhere, and people like high school students are talking about it. Even artists are aware of smart software and instant image generation OpenAI style.
- Google remains ill equipped to respond to ChatGPT’s sudden thunder showers and wind storms of social buzz. Not even Google’s rise to fame matches what has happened to OpenAI and ChatGPT in the last few months. There are rumors that Microsoft will do more than provided Azure computing resources for ChatGPT. Microsoft may dump hard cash billions into OpenAI. Who is not excited to punch a button and have Microsoft Word write that report for you? I think high school students will embrace the idea; teachers and article writers at CNet, not so much.
- Retooling Google’s decades old systems and methods for the snappy ChatGPT approach will take time and money. Google has the money, but in the world of bomb cyclones the company may not have time. Technology fortunes can vaporize quickly like the value of a used Tesla on Cars and Bids.
Net net: Google, believe it or not, has been in its own Googley way trying to respond to its ChatGPT moment. What the company has been doing is interesting. However, unlike some of Google’s technical processes, the online information access world is able to change. Can Google? Will high school students and search engine optimization spam writers care? What about “axis of evil” outfits and their propaganda agencies? What about users who do not know when a machine-generated output is dead wrong? Google may not face an existential crisis, but the company definitely knows something is shaking the once-solid foundations of the buildings on Shoreline Drive.
Stephen E Arnold, January 16, 2023
Ah, Google Logic: The Internet Will Be Ruined If You Regulate Us!
January 16, 2023
I have to give Google credit for crazy logic and chutzpah if the information in “Google to SCOTUS: Liability for Promoting Terrorist Videos Will Ruin the Internet” is on the money. The write up presents as Truth this statement:
Google claimed that denying that Section 230 protections apply to YouTube’s recommendation engine would remove shields protecting all websites using algorithms to sort and surface relevant content—from search engines to online shopping websites. This, Google warned, would trigger “devastating spillover effects” that would devolve the Internet “into a disorganized mess and a litigation minefield”—which is exactly what Section 230 was designed to prevent. It seems that in Google’s view, a ruling against Google would transform the Internet into a dystopia where all websites and even individual users could potentially be sued for sharing links to content deemed offensive. In a statement, Google general counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado said that such liability would lead some bigger websites to overly censor content out of extreme caution, while websites with fewer resources would probably go the other direction and censor nothing.
I think this means the really super duper, magical Internet will be rendered even worse that some people think it is.
I must admit that Google has the money to hire people who will explain a potential revenue hit in catastrophic, life changing, universe disrupting lingo.
Let’s step back. Section 230 was a license to cut down the redwoods of publishing and cover the earth with synthetic grass. The effectiveness of the online ad model generated lots of dough, provided oodles of mouse pads and T shirts to certain people, and provided an easy way to destroy precision and recall in search.
Yep, a synthetic world. Why would Google see any type of legal or regulatory change as really bad … for Google. Interested in some potentially interesting content. Check out YouTube videos retrieved by entering the word “Nasheed.” Want some short cuts to commercial software. Run a query on YouTube for “sony vegas 19 crack.” Curious about the content that entertains some adults with weird tastes. Navigate to YouTube and run a query for “grade school swim parties.”
Alternatively one can navigate to Google.com and enter these queries for fun and excitement:
- ammonium and urea nitrate combustion
- afghan taliban recruitment requirements
- principal components of methamphetamine
Other interesting queries are supported by Google. Why? Because the company abandoned the crazy idea that an editorial policy, published guidelines for acceptable content, and a lack of informed regulation makes it easy for Google to do whatever it wants.
Now that sense of entitlement and the tech wizard myth is fading. Google has a reason to be frightened. Right now the company is thrashing internally in Code Red mode, banking on the fact that OpenAI will not match Google’s progress in synthetic data, and sticking its talons into the dike in order to control leaks.
What are these leaks? How about cost control, personnel issues, the European Union and its regulators, online advertising competitors, and the perception that Google Search is maybe less interesting that the ChatGPT thing that one of the super analysts explained this way in superlatives and over the top lingo:
There is so much more to write about AI’s potential impact, but this Article is already plenty long. OpenAI is obviously the most interesting from a new company perspective: it is possible that OpenAI becomes the platform on which all other AI companies are built, which would ultimately mean the economic value of AI outside of OpenAI may be fairly modest; this is also the bull case for Google, as they [sic] would be the most well-palace to be the Microsoft to OpenAI’s AWS.
I have put in bold face the superlatives and categorical words and phrases used by the author of “AI and the Big Five.”
Now let’s step in more closely. Google’s appeal is an indication that Google is getting just a tad desperate. Sure it has billions. It is a giant business. But it is a company based on ad technology which is believed to have been inspired by Yahoo, Overture, GoTo ideas. I seem to recall that prior to the IPO a legal matter was resolved with that wildly erratic Yahoo crowd.
We are in the here an now. My hunch is that Google’s legal teams (note the plural) will be busy in 2023. It is not clear how much the company will have to pay and change to deal with a world in which Googley is not as exciting as the cheerleaders who want so much for a new world order of smart software.
What was my point about synthetic data? Stay tuned.
Stephen E Arnold, January 16, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
