In the AI Race, Is Google Able to Win a Sprint to a Feature?
May 31, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
One would think that a sophisticated company with cash and skilled employees would avoid a mistake like shooting the CEO in the foot. The mishap has occurred again, and if it were captured in a TikTok, it would make an outstanding trailer for the Sundar & Prabhakar reprise of The Greatest Marketing Mistakes of the Year.
At age 25, which is quite the mileage when traveling on the Information Superhighway, the old timer is finding out that younger, speedier outfits may win a number of AI races. In the illustration, the Google runner seems stressed at the start of the race. Will the geezer win? Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough, which is the benchmark today I fear.
“Google Is Taking ‘Swift Action’ to Remove Inaccurate AI Overview Responses” explains that Google rolled out with some fanfare its AI Overviews. The idea is that smart software would just provide the “user” of the Google ad delivery machine with an answer to a query. Some people have found that the outputs are crazier than one would expect from a Big Tech outfit. The article states:
… Google says, “The vast majority of AI Overviews provide high-quality information, with links to dig deeper on the web. Many of the examples we’ve seen have been uncommon queries, and we’ve also seen examples that were doctored or that we couldn’t reproduce. “We conducted extensive testing before launching this new experience, and as with other features we’ve launched in Search, we appreciate the feedback,” Google adds. “We’re taking swift action where appropriate under our content policies, and using these examples to develop broader improvements to our systems, some of which have already started to roll out.”
But others are much kinder. One notable example is Mashable’s “We Gave Google’s AI Overviews the Benefit of the Doubt. Here’s How They Did.” This estimable publication reported:
Were there weird hallucinations? Yes. Did they work just fine sometimes? Also yes.
The write up noted:
AI Overviews were a little worse in most of my test cases, but sometimes they were perfectly fine, and obviously you get them very fast, which is nice. The AI hallucinations I experienced weren’t going to steer me toward any danger.
Let’s step back and view the situation via several observations:
- Google’s big moment becomes a meme cemented to glue on pizza
- Does Google have a quality control process which flags obvious gaffes? Apparently not.
- Google management seems to suggest that humans have to intervene in a Google “smart” process. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of using smart software to replace some humans?
Net net: The Google is ageing, and I am not sure a singularity will offset these quite obvious effects of ageing, slowed corporate processes, and stuttering synapses in the revamped AI unit.
Stephen E Arnold, May 31, 2024
Amazon: Competition Heats Up in Some Carpetland Offices
May 31, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
The tech industry is cutthroat and no one is safe in their position, no matter how high they are on the food chain. The Verge explains how one of Amazon’s CEOs might not be able to withstand competition: “Amazon Web Services CEO To Step Down.” Adam Selipsky is the acting CEO of Amazon Web Services and he will be stepping down June 3, 2024. He will be replaced by Matt Garman, who is currently the SVP of AWS sales, marketing, and global services. Garman has worked at Amazon for eighteen years in the AWS division.
AWS is responsible for 17% of Amazon’s total revenue and 6% of its operating income in the first quarter of 2024. AWS is known as an “invisible server empire” because it hosts the infrastructures of many organizations across all industries. When AWS experienced outages, there were ripple effects on the Internet and real world, i.e., Amazon delivery vans and warehouse bots couldn’t work. AWS is a big player in Amazon’s AI development: proprietary AI chips, Anthropic, Amazon Q, Amazon Bedrock, and Nvidia’s GH200 chips. Selipsky was a major leader in building Amazon’s AI foundations.
Andy Jassy wrote an email to AWS staff about the transfer of power that applauds Selipsky’s service, explains he’s moving onto another “challenge,” and is taking a “well-deserved respite.” The email then moves onto congratulating German. Selipsky replied with the following:
“Leading this amazing team and the AWS business is a big job, and I’m proud of all we’ve accomplished going from a start-up to where we are today. In the back of my head I thought there might be another chapter down the road at some point, but I never wanted to distract myself from what we are all working so hard to achieve. Given the state of the business and the leadership team, now is an appropriate moment for me to make this transition, and to take the opportunity to spend more time with family for a while, recharge a bit, and create some mental free space to reflect and consider the possibilities.
Matt and the AWS leadership team are ready for this next big opportunity. I’m excited to see what they and you do next, because I know it will be impressive. The future is bright for AWS (and for Amazon). I wish you all the very best of luck on this adventure.”
Selipsky, Jassy, Garman, and the AWS appear to be leaving on good terms. There might be something that happened behind closed doors and the verbiage indicates Selipsky can’t handle where AWS is going.
Whitney Grace, May 31, 2024
A Different View of That Google Search Leak
May 30, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
As a dinobaby, I can make observations that a person with two young children and a mortgage are not comfortable making. So buckle your seat belt and grab a couple of Prilosec. I don’t think the leak is a big deal. Let me provide some color.
This cartoon requires that you examine the information in “Authorities: Google Exec Died on Yacht after Upscale Prostitute Injected Him with Heroin.” The incident provides some insight into the ethical compass of one Google officer. Do others share that directionality? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You unwittingly produced a good cartoon. Ho ho ho.
Many comments are zipping around about the thousands of pages of Google secret information are flying around. The “legend” of the leak is that Search API information became available. The “spark” which lit the current Google fire was this post: “An Anonymous Source Shared Thousands of Leaked Google Search API Documents with Me; Everyone in SEO Should See Them.” (FYI: The leaker is an entity using the handle “Erfan Azimi.”)
That write up says:
This documentation doesn’t show things like the weight of particular elements in the search ranking algorithm, nor does it prove which elements are used in the ranking systems. But, it does show incredible details about data Google collects.
If you want more of this SEO stuff, have at it. I think the information is almost useless. Do Googler’s follow procedures? Think about your answer for a company that operates essentially without meaningful controls. Here’s my view which means it is time to gulp those tabs.
First, the entire SEO game helps Google sell online advertising. Once the SEO push fails to return results to the client of the SEO expert, Google allows these experts to push Google ads on their customer. Why? Pay Google money and the advertiser will get traffic. How does this work? Well, money talks, and Google search experts deliver clicks.
Second, the core of Google is now surrounded by wrappers. The thousands of words in the leak record the stuff essentially unmanaged Googlers do to fill time. After 25 years, the old ideas (some of which were derived from the CLEVER method for which Jon Kleinberg deserves credit.) have been like a pretty good organic chicken swathed in hundreds of layers of increasingly crappy plastic wrap. With the appropriate source of illumination, one can discern the chicken beneath the halogenated wrap, but the chicken looks darned awful. Do you want to eat the chicken? Answer: Probably no more than I want to eat a pizza with non-toxic glue in the cheese.
Third, the senior management of the Google is divorced from the old-fashioned idea of typing a couple of words and getting results which are supposed to be germane to the query. When Boolean logic was part of the search game, search was about 60 percent effective. Thus, it seemed logical over the years to provide training wheels and expand the query against which ads could be sold. Now the game is just to sell ads because the query is relaxed, extended, and mostly useless except for a narrow class of search strings. (Use Google dorks and get some useful stuff.)
Okay, what are the implications of these three observations? Grab another Prilosec, please.
First, Google has to make more and more money because its costs are quite difficult to control. With cost control out of reach, the company’s “leadership” must focus on extracting cash from “users.” (Customers is not the right word for those in the Google datasphere.) The CFO is looking for her future elsewhere. The key point is that her future is not at the Google, its black maw hungry for cash, and the costs of keeping the lights on. Burn rate is not a problem just for start ups, folks.
Second, Google’s senior management is not focused on search no matter what the PR says. The company’s senior leader is a consultant, a smooth talking wordsmith, and a neutral personality to the outside world. As a result, the problems of software wrappers and even the incredible missteps with smart software are faint sounds coming from the other side of a sound-proofed room in a crazy college dormitory. Consultants consult. That’s what Google’s management team does. The “officers” have to figure out how to implement. Then those who do the work find themselves in a cloud of confusion. I did a blog essay about one of Google’s odd ball methods for delivering “minimum viable products”. The process has a name, but I have forgotten it, just like those working on Google’s “innovative” products which are difficult for me to name even after the mind-numbing Google I/O. Everything is fuzzy and illuminated by flickering Red Alert and Yellow Alert lights.
Third, Google has been trying to diversify its revenue stream for decades. After much time and effort, online advertising is darned close to 70 percent of the firm’s revenue. The numerous venture capital initiatives, the usually crazy skunk works often named X or a term from a weird union of a humanoid and a piece of hardware have delivered what? The Glasshole? The life-sized board game? The Transformic Inc.s’ data structure? Dr. Guha’s semantic technology? Yeah, failures because the revenue contributed is negligible. The idea of innovation at Google from the Backrub in the dorm has been derivative, imitative, and in the case of online advertising methods something for which Google paid some big bucks to Yahoo before the Google initial public offering. Google is not imitative; it is similar to a high school science club with an art teacher in charge. Google is clever and was quick moving. The company was fearless and was among the first to use academic ideas in its commercial search and advertising business until it did not. We are in the did not phase. Think about that when you put on a Google T shirt.
Finally, the company lacks the practical expertise to keep its 155,000 (estimated to be dropping at a cadence) full-time equivalents on the reservation. Where did the leaked but largely irrelevant documents originate? Not Mr. Fishkin: He was the lucky recipient of information from Mr. Ezimi. Where did he get the documents? I am waiting for an answer, Mr. Ezimi. Answer carefully because possession of such documents might be something of interest to some government authorities. The leak is just one example of a company which cannot coordinate information in a peer-reviewed journal paper. Remember the stochastic parrot? If not, run a query and look at what Google outputs from its smart software. And the protests? Yeah, thanks for screwing up traffic and my ability to grab a quick coffee at Philz when the Googlers are milling around with signs. Common sense seems in short supply.
So what?
For those who want search traffic, buy advertising. Plan to spend a minimum of $20,000 per month to get some action. If you cannot afford it, you need to put your thinking cap in a USB C socket and get some marketing ideas. Web search is not going to deliver those eyeballs. My local body shop owner asked me, “What can I do to get more visibility for my Google Local listing?” I said, “Pay a friend to post about your business in Nextdoor.com, get some customers to post about your dent removal prowess on Facebook, and pay some high school kid to spend some time making before and after pictures for Instagram. Pay the teen to make a TikTok video of a happy customer.” Note that I did not mention Google. It doesn’t deliver for local outfits.
Now you can kick back and enumerate the reasons why my view of Google is wrong, crazy, or out of touch. Feel free to criticize. I am a dinobaby; I consulted for a certain big time search engine; I consulted for venture firms investing in search; and I worked on some Fancy Dan systems. But my experience does not matter. I am a dinobaby, and I don’t care how other people find information. I pay several people to find information for me. I then review what those young wizards produce. Most of them don’t agree with me on some issues. That’s why I pay them. But this dinobaby’s views of Google are not designed to make them or you happy.
Net net: The image of Google to keep in mind is encapsulated in this article: Yacht Killing: Escort to Be Arraigned in Google Exec’s Heroin Death. Yep, Googlers are sporty. High school mentalities make mistakes, serious mistakes.
Stephen E Arnold, May 30, 2024
Bullying Google Is a Thing
May 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Imagine the smartest kid in the fifth grade. The classmates are not jealous, but they are keenly aware of the brightest star having an aloof, almost distracted attitude. Combine that with a credit in a TV commercial when the budding wizard was hired to promote an advanced mathematics course developed by the child’s mother and father. The blessed big brain finds itself the object of ridicule. The PhD parents, the proud teacher, and the child’s tutor who works at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory cannot understand why the future Master of the Universe is being bullied. Remarkable, is it not?
Herewith is an illustration of a fearsome creature, generated in gloomy colors, by the MidJourney bot, roaring its superiority. However, those observing the Big Boy are convulsed with laughter. Why laugh at an ageing money machine with big teeth?
I read “Google’s AI Search Feature Suggested Using Glue to Keep Cheese Sticking to a Pizza.” Yep fourth grade bullying may be part of the poking and prodding of a quite hapless but wealthy, successful Googzilla. Here’s an example of the situation in which the Google, which I affectionately call “Googzilla,” finds itself:
Google’s new search feature, AI Overviews, seems to be going awry. The tool, which gives AI-generated summaries of search results, appeared to instruct a user to put glue on pizza when they searched "cheese not sticking to pizza."
In another write up, Business Insider asserted:
But in searches shared on X, users have gotten contradictory instructions on boiling taro and even been encouraged to run with scissors after the AI appeared to take a joke search seriously. When we asked whether a dog had ever played in the NHL, Google answered that one had, apparently confused by a charity event for rescue pups.
My reaction to this digital bullying is mixed. On one hand, Google has demonstrated that its Code Red operating mode is cranking out half-cooked pizza. Sure, the pizza may have some non-poisonous glue, but Google is innovating. A big event provided a platform for the online advertising outfit to proclaim, “We are the leaders in smart software.” On the other hand, those observing Google’s outputs find the beastie a follower; for example, OpenAI announced ChatGPT4o the day before Google’s “reveal.” Then Microsoft presented slightly more coherent applications using AI, including the privacy special service which records everything a person does on a reinvented Windows on Arm device.
Several observations are warranted:
- Googzilla finds itself back in grade school with classmates of lesser ability, wealth, and heritage making fun of the entity. Wow, remember the shame? Remember the fun one had poking fun at an outsider? Humans are wonderful, are they not?
- “Users” or regular people who rely on Google seem to have a pent up anger with the direction in which Googzilla has been going. Since the company does not listen to its “users,” calling attention to Googzilla’s missteps is an easy way to say, “Hey, Big Fella, you are making us unhappy.” Will Google pay attention to these unexpected signals?
- Google, the corporate entity, seems to be struggling with Management 101 tasks; for example, staff or people resources. The CFO is heading to the exit. Competition, while flawed in some ways, continues to nibble at Google’s advertising perpetual motion machine. Google innovation focuses on gamesmanship and trying to buy digital marketing revenue.
Net net: I anticipate more coverage of Google’s strategy and tactical missteps. The bullying will continue and probably grow unless the company puts on its big boy pants and neutralizes the school yard behavior its critics and cynics deliver.
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2024
IBM: A Management Beacon Shines Brightly
May 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
To be frank, I don’t know if the write up called “IBM Sued Again for Alleged Discrimination. This Time Against White Males” is on the money. I don’t really care. The item is absolutely delicious. For context, older employees were given an opportunity to train their replacements and then find their future elsewhere. I think someone told me that was “age discrimination.” True or not, a couple of interesting Web sites disappeared. These reported on the hilarious personnel management policies in place at Big Blue during the sweep of those with silver hair. Hey, as a dinobaby, I know getting older adds a cost burden to outfits who really care about their employees. Plus, old employees are not “fast,” like those whip smart 24 year olds with fancy degrees and zero common sense. I understood the desire to dump expensive employees and find cheaper, more flexible workers. Anyone can learn PL/I, but only the young can embrace the intricacies of Squarespace.
Old geezers and dinobabies have no place on a team of young, bright, low wage athletes. Thanks, ChatGPT. Good enough in one try. Microsoft Copilot crashed. Well, MSFT is busy with security and AI or is it AI and security. I don’t know, do you?
The cited article reports:
The complaint claims that in the pursuit of greater racial and gender diversity within the Linux distro maker, Red Hat axed senior director Allan Kingsley Wood, an employee of eight years. According to the suit, that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiative within Red Hat “necessitates prioritizing skin color and race as primary hiring factors,” and this, and not other factors, led to him being laid off. Basically, Wood claims he was unfairly let go for being a White man, rather for performance or the like, because Red Hat was focused on prioritizing in an unlawfully discriminatory fashion people of other races and genders to diversify its ranks.
The impact? The professional has an opportunity to explore the greenness on the side of the fence closer to the unemployment benefits claims office. The write up concludes this way:
It’s too early to tell how likely Wood is to succeed in his case. A 2020 lawsuit against Google on similar grounds didn’t even make it to court because the plaintiff withdrew. On the other hand, IBM has been settling age-discrimination claims left and right, so perhaps we’ll see that happen here. We’ve reached out to Red Hat and AFL for further comment on the impending court battle, and we’ll update if we hear back.
I will predict the future. The parties to this legal matter (assuming it is not settled among gentlemen) will not get back to the author of the news report. In my opinion, IBM remains a paragon of outstanding personnel management.
Stephen E Arnold, May 17, 2024
Google Lessons in Management: Motivating Some, Demotivating Others
May 14, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I spotted an interesting comment in “Google Workers Complain of Decline in Morale’ as CEO Sundar Pichai Grilled over Raises, Layoffs: Increased distrust.” Here’s the passage:
Last month, the company fired 200 more workers, aside from the roughly 50 staffers involved in the protests, and shifted jobs abroad to Mexico and India.
I paired this Xhitter item with “Google Employees Question Execs over Decline in Morale after Blowout Earnings.” That write up asserted:
At an all-hands meeting last week, Google employees questioned leadership about cost cuts, layoffs and “morale” issues following the company’s better-than-expected first-quarter earnings report. CEO Sundar Pichai and CFO Ruth Porat said the company will likely have fewer layoffs in the second half of 2024.
Poor, poor Googzilla. I think the fearsome alleged monopolist could lose a few pounds. What do you think? Thanks, MSFT Copilot good enough work just like some security models we know and love.
Not no layoffs. Just “fewer layoffs.” Okay, that a motivator.
The estimable “real” news service stated:
Alphabet’s top leadership has been on the defensive for the past few years, as vocal staffers have railed about post-pandemic return-to-office mandates, the company’s cloud contracts with the military, fewer perks and an extended stretch of layoffs — totaling more than 12,000 last year — along with other cost cuts that began when the economy turned in 2022. Employees have also complained about a lack of trust and demands that they work on tighter deadlines with fewer resources and diminished opportunities for internal advancement.
What’s wrong with this management method? The answer: Absolutely nothing. The write up included this bit of information:
She [Ruth Porat, Google CFO, who is quitting the volleyball and foosball facility] also took the rare step of admitting to leadership’s mistakes in its prior handling of investments. “The problem is a couple of years ago — two years ago, to be precise — we actually got that upside down and expenses started growing faster than revenues,” said Porat, who announced nearly a year ago [in 2023] that she would be stepping down from the CFO position but hasn’t yet vacated the office. “The problem with that is it’s not sustainable.”
Ever tactful, Sundar Pichai (the straight man in the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Team is quoted as saying in silky tones:
“I think you almost set the record for the longest TGIF answer,” he said. Google all-hands meetings were originally called TGIFs because they took place on Fridays, but now they can occur on other days of the week. Pichai then joked that leadership should hold a “Finance 101” Ted Talk for employees. With respect to the decline in morale brought up by employees, Pichai said “leadership has a lot of responsibility here, adding that “it’s an iterative process.”
That’s a demonstration of tactful high school science club management-speak, in my opinion. To emphasize the future opportunities for the world’s smartest people, he allegedly said, according to the write up:
Pichai said the company is “working through a long period of transition as a company” which includes cutting expenses and “driving efficiencies.” Regarding the latter point, he said, “We want to do this forever.” [Editor note: Emphasis added]
Forever is a long, long time, isn’t it?
Poor, addled Googzilla. Litigation to the left, litigation to the right. Grousing world’s smartest employees. A legacy of baby making in the legal department. Apple apparently falling in lust with OpenAI. Amazon and its pesky Yellow Pages approach to advertising.
The sky is not falling, but there are some dark clouds overhead. And, speaking of overhead, is Google ever going to be able to control its costs, pay off its technical debt, write checks to the governments when the firm is unjustly found guilty of assorted transgressions?
For now, yes. Forever? Sure, why not?
Stephen E Arnold, May 14, 2024
AI Does Prediction about Humans: What Could Go Wrong
April 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The academic institution which took money from everyone’s favorite expert on exploitation has revealed an interesting chunk of research. Sadly it is about broader concept of exploitation than those laboring in his mansions. “MIT Study Reveals an AI Model That Can Predict Future Actions of Human.” The title seems a bit incomplete, but no doubt Mr. Epstein would embrace the technology. Imagine. Feed in data about those with whom he employed and match the outputs to the interests of his clients and friends.
The write up says:
A new study from researchers at MIT and the University of Washington reveals an AI model that can accurately predict a person or a machine’s future actions. The AI is known as the latent inference budget model (L-IBM). The study authors claim that L-IBM is better than other previously proposed frameworks capable of modeling human decision-making. It works by examining past behavior, actions, and limitations linked to the thinking process of an agent (which could be either a human or another AI). The data or result obtained after the assessment is called the inference budget.
Very academic sounding. I expected no less from MIT and its companion institution.
To model the decision-making process of an agent, L-IBM first analyzes an individual’s behavior and the different variables that affect it. “In other words, we seek to model both what agents wish to do and what agents will actually do in any given state,” the researchers said. This step involved observing agents placed in a maze at random positions. The L-IBM model was then employed to understand their thinking/computational limitations and predict their behavior.
A predictive system allows for more efficient use of available resources. Smart software does not protest, require benefits, or take vacations. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. Just four tries today.
The method seems less labor intensive that the old, cancer wizard IBM Watson relied upon. This model processes behavior data, not selected information; for example, cancer treatments. Then, the new system will observe actions and learn what those humans will do next.
Then the clever researchers arranged a game:
The researchers made the subjects play a reference game. The game involves a speaker and a listener. The latter receives a set of different colors, they pick one but can’t tell the name of the color they picked directly to the listener. The speaker describes the color for the speakers through natural language utterances (basically the speaker gives out different words as hints). If the listener selects the same color the speaker picked from the set, they both win.
At this point in the write up, I was wondering how long the process requires and what the fully loaded costs would be to get one useful human prediction. The write up makes clear that more work was required. Now the model played chess with humans. (I thought the Google cracked this problem with DeepMind methods after IBM’s chess playing system beat up a world champion human.
One of the wizards is quoted in the write up as stating:
“For me, the most striking thing was the fact that this inference budget is very interpretable. It is saying tougher problems require more planning or being a strong player means planning for longer. When we first set out to do this, we didn’t think that our algorithm would be able to pick up on those behaviors naturally.
Yes, there are three steps. But the expert notes:
“We demonstrated that it can outperform classical models of bounded rationality while imputing meaningful measures of human skill and task difficulty,” the researchers note. If we know that a human is about to make a mistake, having seen how they have behaved before, the AI agent could step in and offer a better way to do it. Or the agent could adapt to the weaknesses that its human collaborators have. Being able to model human behavior is an important step toward building an AI agent that can actually help that human…
If Mr. Epstein had access to a model with this capability, he might still be with us. Other applications of the technology may lead to control of malleable humans.
Net net: MIT is a source of interesting investigations like the one conducted after the Epstein antics became more widely known. Light the light of learning.
Stephen E Arnold, April 26, 2024
Is Grandma Google Making Erratic Decisions?
April 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Clowny Fish TV is unknown to me. The site published a write up which I found interesting and stuffed full of details I had not seen previously. The April 18, 2024, essay is “YouTubers Claim YouTube is Very Broken Right Now.” Let’s look at a handful of examples and see if these spark any thoughts in my dinobaby mind. As Vladimir Shmondenko says, “Let’s go.”
Grandma Googzilla has her view of herself. Nosce teipsum, right? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s your security today?
Here’s a statement to consider:
Over the past 72 hours, YouTubers have been complaining on X about everything from delayed comments to a noticeable decline in revenue and even videos being removed by Google for nebulous reasons after being online for years.
Okay, sluggish functions from the video ad machine. I have noticed either slow-loading or dead video ads; that is, the ads take a long time (maybe a second or two to 10 seconds to show up) or nothing happens and a “Skip” button just appears. No ad to skip. I wonder, “Do the advertisers pay for a non-displayed ad followed by a skip?” I assume there is some fresh Google word salad available in the content cafeteria, but I have not spotted it. Those arrests have, however, caught my attention.
Another item from the essay:
In fact, many longtime YouTube content creators have announced their retirements from the platform over the past year, and I have to wonder if these algorithm changes aren’t a driving force behind that. There’s no guarantee that there will be room for the “you” in YouTube six months from now, let alone six years from now.
I am not sure I know many of the big-time content creators. I do know that the famous Mr. Beast has formed a relationship with the Amazon Twitch outfit. Is that megastar hedging his bets? I think he is. Those videos cost big bucks and could be on broadcast TV if there were a functioning broadcast television service in the US.
How about this statement:
On top of the algorithm shift, and on top of the monetization hit, Google is now reportedly removing old videos that violate their current year Terms of Service.
Shades of the 23andMe approach to Terms of Service. What struck me is that one of my high school history teachers — I think his name was Earl Skaggs — railed against Joseph Stalin’s changing Russian history and forcing textbooks to be revised to present Mr. Stalin’s interpretation of reality. Has Google management added changing history to their bag of tricks. I know that arresting employees is a useful management tool, but I have been relying on news reports. Maybe those arrests were “fake news.” Nothing surprises me where online information is in the mix.
I noted this remarkable statement in the Clown Fish TV essay:
Google was the glue that held all these websites together and let people get found. We’re seeing what a world looks like without Google. Because for many content creators and journalists, it’ll be practically worthless going forward.
I have selected a handful of items. The original article includes screenshots, quotes from people whom I assume are “experts” or whatever passes as an authority today, and a of Google algorithm questioning. But any of the Googlers with access to the algorithm can add a tweak or create a “wrapper” to perform a specific task. I am not sure too many Googlers know how to fiddle the plumbing anymore. Some of the “clever” code is now more than 25 years old. (People make fun of mainframes. Should more Kimmel humor be directed at 25 year old Google software?)
Observations are indeed warranted:
- I read Google criticism on podcasts; I read criticism of Google online. Some people are falling out of love with the Google.
- Google muffed the bunny with its transformer technology. By releasing software as open source, the outfit may have unwittingly demonstrated how out of touch its leadership team is and opened the door to some competitors able to move more quickly than Grandma Google. Microsoft. Davos. AI. Ah, yes.
- The Sundar & Prabhakar School of Strategic Thinking has allowed Google search to become an easy target. Metasearch outfits recycling poor old Bing results are praised for being better than Google. That’s quite an achievement and a verification that some high-school science club management methods don’t work as anticipated. I won’t mention arresting employees again. Oh, heck. I will. Google called the police on its own staff. Slick. Professional.
Net net: Clown Fish TV definitely has presented a useful image of Grandma Google and her video behaviors.
Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2024
So Much for Silicon Valley Solidarity
April 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I thought the entity called Benzinga was a press release service. Guess not. I received a link to what looked like a “real” news story written by a Benzinga Staff Writer name Jain Rounak. “Elon Musk Reacts As Marc Andreessen Says Google Is ‘Literally Run By Employee Mobs’ With ‘Chinese Spies’ Scooping Up AI Chip Designs.” The article is a short one, and it is not exactly what the title suggested to me. Nevertheless, let’s take a quick look at what seems to be some ripping of the Silicon Valley shibboleth of solidarity.
The members of the Happy Silicon Valley Social club are showing signs of dissention. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How is your security today? Oh, really.
The hook for the story is another Google employee protest. The cause was a deal for Google to provide cloud services to Israel. I assume the Googlers split along ethno-political-religious lines: One group cheering for Hamas and another for Israel. (I don’t have any first-hand evidence, so I am leveraging the scant information in the Benzinga news story.
Then what? Apparently Marc Andreessen of Netscape fame and AI polemics offered some thoughts. I am not sure where these assertions were made or if they are on the money. But, I grant to Benzinga, that the Andreessen emissions are intriguing. Let’s look at one:
“The company is literally overrun by employee mobs, Chinese spies are walking AI chip designs out the door, and they turn the Founding Fathers and the Nazis black.”
The idea that there are “Google mobs” running from Foosball court to vending machines and then to their quiet space and then to the parking lot is interesting. Where’s Charles Dickens of Tale of Two Cities fame when you need an observer to document a revolution. Are Googlers building barricades in the passage ways? Are Prius and Tesla vehicles being set on fire?
In the midst of this chaotic environment, there are Chinese spies. I am not sure one has to walk chip designs anywhere. Emailing them or copying them from one Apple device to another works reasonably well in my experience. The reference to the Google art is a reminder that the high school management club approach to running a potential trillion dollar, alleged monopoly need some upgrades.
Where’s the Elon in this? I think I am supposed to realize that Elon and Andreessen are on the same mental wave length. The Google is not. Therefore, the happy family notion is shattered. Okay, Benzinga. Whatever. Drop those names. The facts? Well, drop those too.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2024
Google AI: Who Is on First? I Do Not Know. No, No, He Is on Third
April 23, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
A big reorg has rattled the Googlers. Not only are these wizards candidates for termination, the work groups are squished like the acrylic pour paintings thrilling YouTube crafters.
Image from Vizoli Art via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@VizoliArt
The image might be a representation of Google’s organization, but I am just a dinobaby without expertise in art or thing Googley. Let me give you an example.
I read “Google Consolidates Its DeepMind and Research Teams Amid AI Push” (from the trust outfit itself, Thomson Reuters). The story presents the date as April 18, 2024. I learned:
The search engine giant had merged its research units Google Brain and DeepMind a year back to sharpen its focus on AI development and get ahead of rivals like Microsoft, a partner of ChatGPT and Sora maker OpenAI.
And who moves? The trust outfit says:
Google will relocate its Responsible AI teams – which focuses on safe AI development – from Research to DeepMind so that they are closer to where AI models are built and scaled, the company said in a blog post.
Ars Technica, which publishes articles without self-identifying with trust. “Google Merges the Android, Chrome, and Hardware Divisions.” That write up channels the acrylic pour approach to management, which Ars Technica describes this way:
Google Hardware SVP Rick Osterloh will lead the new “Platforms and Devices” division. Hiroshi Lockheimer, Google’s previous head of software platforms like Android and ChromeOS, will be headed to “some new projects” at Google.
Why? AI, of course.
But who runs this organizational mix up?
One answer appears in an odd little “real” news story from an outfit called Benzinga. “Google’s DeepMind to Lead Unified AI Charge as Company Seeks to Outpace Microsoft.” The write up asserts:
The reorganization will see all AI-related teams, including the development of the Gemini chatbot, consolidated under the DeepMind division led by Demis Hassabis. This consolidation encompasses research, model development, computing resources, and regulatory compliance teams…
I assume that the one big happy family of Googlers will sort out the intersections of AI, research, hardware, app software, smart software, lines of authority, P&L responsibility, and decision making. Based on my watching Google’s antics over the last 25 years, chaos seems to be part of the ethos of the company. One cannot forget that for the AI razzle dazzle, Code Red, and reorganizational acrylic pouring, advertising accounts for about 60 percent of the firm’s financial footstool.
Will Google’s management team be able to answer the question, “Who is on first?” Will the result of the company’s acrylic pour approach to organizational structures yield a YouTube video like this one? The creator Left Brained Artist explains why acrylic paints cracked, come apart, and generally look pretty darned terrible.
Will Google’s pouring units together result in a cracked result? Left Brained Artist’s suggestions may not apply to an online ad company trying to cope with difficult-to-predict competitors like the Zucker’s Meta or the Microsoft clump of AI stealth fighters: OpenAI, Mistral, et al.
Reviewing the information in these three write ups about Google, I will offer several of my unwanted and often irritating observations. Ready?
- Comparing the Microsoft AI re-organization to the Google AI re-organization it seems to be that Microsoft has a more logical set up. Judging from the information to which I have access, Microsoft is closing deals for its AI technology with government entities and selected software companies. Microsoft is doing practical engineering drawings; Google is dumping acrylic paint, hoping it will be pretty and make sense.
- Google seems to be struggling from a management point of view. We have sit ins, we have police hauling off Googlers, and we have layoffs. We have re-organizations. We have numerous signals that the blue chip consulting approach to an online advertising outfit is a bit unpredictable. Hey, just sell ads and use AI to help you do it without creating 1960s’ style college sophomore sit ins.
- Get organized. Make an attempt to answer the question, “Who is on first?
As Abbott and Costello explained:
Costello: Well, all I’m trying to find out is what’s the guy’s name on first base?
Abbott: Oh, no, no. What is on second base?
Costello: I’m not asking you who’s on second.
Abbott: Who’s on first.
Exactly. Just sell online ads.
Stephen E Arnold, April 23, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
