I think the response here shows both your lack of seriousness and experience here. And a note of elitest bitterness.
I was an snr leader, not the talent. I am freely admitting where the value came from. Brilliant workers smarter than me.
I really question why you’d argue with that when it was ICs who did breakthrough work like transformers that are now fundamentally changing computing. What an arrogant and foolish perspective.
Take a deep breath, you’re reading into it far much more than is actually there.
Nobody said anything about lack of pockets of cutting edge research. This is about products.
LLMs are a perfect example of them being squandered because nobody converted them into a useful product that could be “sold as a vision” by execs.
The people working on them were arrogant enough to think that LLMs would sell themselves and building a tool for users was someone else’s job. The product managers weren’t innovative enough to come up with a product to let people interact with LLMs in a useful way. The execs were too blind to not see the vision of AI doing everything, which is a narrative that drove nvidia to a trillion dollar company.
The people who implemented LLMs will be famous… as academics. The machine they are a part of completely failed to execute on them.
You’re asking for evidence of a lack of evidence. It would have leaked out if there was some huge vision of AI assistants that was being ignored by execs.
I am not "asking for evidence of a lack of evidence". I am asking for evidence that the engineers held this arrogant position. There is no "lack of evidence" described in this supposed arrogance.
Yes you are. No google product emerged because there was no product vision from the researchers, the execs, the engineers, and any of the PMs who read about it. It would have leaked out if the researchers had some grand product that morons at the top squashed.
Google is a massive company and cannot keep a lid on anything like this. There is no evidence that there was anything there as shown by both the lack of rumored products and the lackluster also-ran release of Bard.
This type of arrogance is extremely common in any research positions (both academic and industry) because people are trained very early on that it’s not their job to suggest how these things might be useful. Papers are not reviewed for applicability, grants are not based on it, dissertations are not graded on it, and on and on.
It’s systematic arrogance trained into researchers by the institutions.
Look at Alan Turing and many of the other big names in CS. The same arrogance is in all of their writings, speeches, etc but that’s expected because it’s academia. A researcher’s role in an R&D department at a corporation is not as disconnected as academia, and the researchers should know that.
I was an snr leader, not the talent. I am freely admitting where the value came from. Brilliant workers smarter than me.
I really question why you’d argue with that when it was ICs who did breakthrough work like transformers that are now fundamentally changing computing. What an arrogant and foolish perspective.
reply