this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
308 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59197 readers
3533 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They literally "invented" the method used by chatgpt. They are still ahead with AI research. Their main problem is bringing the value to the market. But that is a management problem. Management has no clear vision unfortunately. But it might takes just few changes at the highest management level to completely change the game. Google has still the best r&d in the tech world, they must return to use it properly

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In a way, it looks even worse for a company that it was ahead in the fundamental research, and the corporate bureaucracy and management held it back so much that competitors took the difficult ideas invented there and turned them into products first. My intuition is that it's easier to fix being behind on a research and technology level than it is to fix having bad corporate culture and complacent management focused only on protecting existing cash cows.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Both are difficult. Microsoft had most money in the world for a long time and never managed to have a barely decent R&D. The only decent internal "original" product was probably c#, that is still a copy of java. The problem is companies focused on making money prefer paying external companies to take the risks of innovation, and eventually buy them. It is the same for big pharma companies. When MBAs are in charge, innovation stops, because MBA fundamentally do not understand it. On the other hand innovation-focused companies struggle to make money, because they don't understand customers and market.

Google tried to put itself in the middle, a 3rd way, but on the long term money people won, and left the innovation part as those companies that display an original Leonardo's notebook in the entrance of their offices. It became a prestigious token to show around.

They need to evolve going back in time, otherwise there's a real risk for them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And DeepMind is doing things that no one has done before, some of which were groundbreaking contributions to the field of biology. Ah, what am I saying ... I got confused. Google bad!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Deepmind deserves a nobel prize, this is a fact

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Deepmind was even bought by Google. Let's hope this "google deepmind" idea won't kill it. They are crazy good

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They've been under the fold for a while now. I don't think they're in any danger of being graveyarded. I think for them internal politics, part of which being shareholder pressure, will be the challenge to keep on top of.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was not thinking about graveyard, more about losing the freedom of research to "deliver products to market". That would mean killing the greatness of deepmind

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Ah, so the same as what I was thinking of. Got it. 👌

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I was not thinking about graveyard, more about losing the freedom of research to "deliver products to market". That would mean killing the greatness of deepmind