zlacker

>>i13e+(OP)
How could they have left such a massive gap in their product. They literally have the model and resources to revolutionize search. We all know LLMs will hurt their ad revenue, but regardless they have to have known this was coming. This is so similar to FB getting caught off guard by TikTok. There was a gap in the utility of their product (TikTok enabled grass roots content creation), and they just left it wide open.

Its some combination of:

1. ChatGPT is so much better than previous versions that Google themselves was stunned by the utility.

2. Incompetence/Gross negligence across Google

3. No way for them to reconcile the lost ad revenue, so they released nothing. This case is hard to argue for, as they would know theyre a sitting duck.

Regardless I am hoping for a massive Google failure. Theyre the ones responsible for the SEO content waste land that is the modern internet. We have all suffered at the feet of their ad machine

>>fdgsdf+Uc
4. Google Search already has lots of useful AI already in it, but Google didn't want to integrate a racist, confabulating chatbot, forgetting that modern users have no preference for truth over lies.

Why are you blaming Google for not being perfect while making the best free search engine, after you spent your whole life refusing to pay for a non-free one?

>>hgsgm+Sd
Let's be clear, the reason Google didn't want to jump into conversation search is because it invalidates large portions of their business model.

At best they want to avoid bad publicity of their tech just being bad enough to throw out racist remarks. But the company who dropped "don't be evil" from their mission statement, and who fired AI ethics researchers for their research in AI bias that Google did not like is not a morale authority on the matter.

Also, Google does not provide an ad-free paid version of google, you statement is a non-sequitur.

>>deevia+ws1
> who fired AI ethics researchers for their research in AI bias that Google did not like

I'm no fan of Google, but this seriously glosses over a rather complex situation. A paper may have been the catalyst, but I'd argue definitely not the reason for the firings. You can't just demand things with the threat of quitting, then act surprised when you're terminated.

>>silisi+XC1
I don’t agree with that, it wasn’t even a complex situation, Google just didn’t like the idea that a paper attributed to them could point out all the obvious unethical implications of this technology and shut it down.

The drama afterwards is largely irrelevant and if anything Gebru’s refusal to just meekly accept the company line demonstrates just how valuable she is in this field. The dismissal isn’t the real story, the retraction of the paper is the real problem the OP is referring to when discussing Google’s moral issues.