[mtu]

Adding to the litany of bad google ideas from the past 10+ years:

- Killing google reader

- Pointless UI changes

- Multiple chat and videocall apps that cannibalize each other.

- Stadia fiasco

- Shoving AI down our throats in their MAIN PRODUCT

What's the source of this rot? I have a friend at google who says the place is filled with smart people competing with each other. Perhaps this competition fuels a chaotic lack of coherency? Kind of feels like they have no clear vision in the "Google Ecosystem", and are hopping on the AI bandwagon with hopes it'll ride them into the future.

[izacus]

The Google stock is at record value. Google revenue is at record value. Google profit is at record value.

You seem to be operating on a concept of "good ideas" that are disconnected from what the owners of Google (= stockholders) want.

Google is still performing exceedingly well for what their owners want. Always follow the money.

[aiauthoritydev]

Google's Gemini is not mind-blowing nor probably top model but without a doubt is in the same ballpark as all their competitors. Which I think is a pretty Good sign. Just like Meta, Google did not drop the ball on AI and looks like they had their ears to the ground better than say MSFT, APPLE or AMZN.

In that sense I can see why investors are happy. What matters is if Google can continue to innovate and at a rate faster than competition.

[mminer237]

I know that view is popular, but it seems so short-sighted. Most companies can increase profit whenever they want, but driving out innovators and abusing goodwill never works out long-term. Look at IBM, Oracle, Intel, Boeing, US Steel, GE, Commodore, Quiznos, etc. I feel like the Google's stock holders are just getting the wool pulled over their eyes. An increase in profit often means a cannibalization of value.

[izacus]

People create, join and own corporation to get monetary profit from them. That's it.

Is it broken? Yep. But the solution isn't going to be griping about a company doing what companies are built to do.

[mminer237]

I'm mostly wondering why shareholders go along with it or even pay on premium on shares making a lot of money now that may be comparatively worthless in 20 years. Do they really believe this is sustainable? Do they expect Google to just start issuing massive dividends? Are they just hoping for a greater fool?

[mjburgess]

a monopoly in the ad and search markets will make an apparent genius out of any fool

[tflol]

> What's the source of this rot?

Powerful people in the company are trying to get "Integrated AI into an existing product with overwhelming resulting engagement" onto their resume.

[surfingdino]

Wall St wants to see them keeping up with the latest tech. That's why Apple put billions into VR and we will hear nothing of it in 12-24 months. Another reason is talent retention/acquisition. AI will be history in 12-24 months when the bubble bursts and we are left with a mountain of cheap GPUs.

[NayamAmarshe]

AI bubble? I wouldn't expect it but would be interesting to see if your prediction holds true.

[skilled]

I think it’s safe to assume that in the next few years almost all consumer hardware will be able to run a local LLM comfortably. And no one knows if LLMs can go beyond GPT-4 in a way that will genuinely blow people away.

[surfingdino]

> (...) almost all consumer hardware will be able to run a local LLM comfortably.

The last thing we want. For example, car manufacturers tried to make voice command work and the results are still unreliable; they also had experimented with touch screens and those are going away, because they are a poor and unsafe way to operate a moving vehicle. People want tactile feedback and ability to operate them without taking their eyes off the road. Why would anybody want an LLM in my camera, phone, washing machine, thermostat?

[skilled]

I personally don’t want that. In my opinion, this current iteration of LLM is completely overblown and I am perplexed as to how quickly it is getting adopted into everything.

Of course, LLMs are useful. For small tasks, there is a significant productivity boost to be had, but they are not trustworthy. And that is the main issue.

If we see them as untrustworthy, then perhaps it is necessary to accelerate their exposure into consumer technology as a means to show that an LLM can cause harm - in whatever form that may come.

It’s very easy to overlook LLMs making things up, but they do (including GPT4) - and if that can’t be solved then it’s safe to assume this hype will be short-lived.

[NayamAmarshe]

> And no one knows if LLMs can go beyond GPT-4 in a way that will genuinely blow people away.

Yeah that's a good point but a lot of people are now investing in this area so we might see more innovation happening in the space.

[surfingdino]

All tech that becomes ubiquitous is based on giving humans answers that do not change based a throw of coin. Your bank account statement shows the same balance for the same end of day query no matter when you request it; your GPS gives you directions to the same place every time you put in the same destination address, not to a place that looks like a probable destination you might want. The best uses for AI are those that do not use generative BS, but for ML that give us answers, patterns, action scripts. Our brains are wired for survival and constantly look for answers, patterns, and scripts that do not change at random. There is a reason why movies and stories follow a hero's arc. We want order, life is chaotic enough. Not realising that will be a rude awakening for all investors in generative AI.

[htrp]

> and we are left with a mountain of cheap GPUs.

cheap obsolete GPUs?

[raverbashing]

> What's the source of this rot?

People that hide behind procedures and metrics and competition driven by that instead of looking outside the window and seeing if it's rainy or sunny.

MBA heads (which might be unfair here because this is more like engineer clockwork head) that use "products launched" as a metric even if you're actually taking down and launching the same product over and over

G killing "unprofitable" products like Google Reader because it makes sense on paper except that a) it's a minor line item b) they are too analytical to measure the impact on good will and brand "soft power" of the power and c) the existence of the product created demand for RSS producers and it was not simply another reader.

[Terr_]

> What's the source of this rot?

I've heard one link in the chain is that promotions are too tied to Shipping New Things, not improving current products or keeping things from becoming worse.

[freetinker]

Accurate. Abject lack of a cohesive vision/strategy, and no leadership to articulate and drive it. It’s a motley collection of fiefdoms competing for perf points.

[kevmo]

The relentless drive to make as much money as possible, as quickly as possible. Publicly traded companies tearing at the soft underbelly of society for a few pennies more each quarter.

[raytopia]

It's probably because they're chasing after metrics.

[beAbU]

Jokes on you if you think Search is Google's main product.

[thefz]

> What's the source of this rot?

Shareholders expect constant gain.

[runiq]

> What's the source of this rot?

Google: Promotions as a Service

[meowkit]

Just sounds like simpsons paradox.

Congressional approval rating - lowest its ever been

Individual congressman? - highest ratings

Tech orgs - bumbling if not incompetent

Individual contributors at these orgs - very talented. Maybe not analytical engines like Knuth but very functional in their respective domains.

Just another meta problem we are hitting at this scale of humanity and information processing.

[hwbunny]

Maybe they are too big. Also too many egos.