So they’ll just die when Google has a seamless AI-first mobile experience where consumers just ask their Pixel to do X and it happens. Disruption comes for everyone, hardware isnt a moat
The issue is that Android won’t have an AI first experience where you depend on local inference because most Android phones being sold are cheap crappy devices and Android users don’t monetize.
But there is much more to a phone than “just doing stuff agentically”. Either way, you give way too much credit for Google to ever make a good end user product and be able to sell it. Google’s sells of pixels for a year are about the same number Apple sells in three weeks.
Apple’s hardware/ecosystem has been a most for 50 years.
Also Google is non existent in the country that has 1/5 of the worlds population.
Google broke my ability to set timers via voice (a core thing my phone used to do forever) for like a year. I no longer use that functionality on my phone (I can't trust Google not to break it, if it can't routinely work, it can't be part of my routine, and I personally don't enjoy cooking dinner twice after a long day).
Google replaced 'Google play the news' from playing news clips from sources I chose and trust, to an AI generated news feed that I have zero faith isn't hallucinated and from sources I have no idea about. Another multiple times daily function I used my phone for, broken by 'Google AI' because 'I should be happy with whatever they give me, it's a free product'.
Google's Youtube/Music algorithm punishes me if I flag AI slop in my feeds by removing those genres/topics, trying to force AI slop into my feed. This one I actually (well until it runs out the end of the month because I canceled) pay for.
Google has trained their users not to use Pixel's voice/AI capabilities, and to resent them (in the typical Google way, be damned with the old it's been replaced with our new half baked product that will itself be replaced shortly after the bugs are gone and it starts to work kind of OK (still really bad, but Google justifies bad is OK because it's 'FREE').
No one is integrating anything new from Google into their routine. No one is integrating Google's broken AI stuff into their daily routine, because it's friggen BROKEN. Google just one day removed me from setting voice timers with my phone, a core use case, for a year, because they could. My routine is not going back to using Google for things I count on just working because Google will arbitrarily break it and I will get the impact (maybe a burnt dinner, maybe faulty news reporting that causes me a heart attack, maybe who knows, maybe a missed important appointment tomorrow?).
Google doesn't care that I'm hit because 'it's good enough for a free product' to them. Everyone I know with a Pixel hates the ecosystem right now. Removing sideloading might fix that and improve good will I guess though? God Google doesn't know and hates their users/advocates/supporters. Google has moved themselves from 'a good solution' to 'good enough for a cheap device and free tools', and made damn sure I know it (via burnt dinners, having to move to my podcast app for (less current) news, by degrading my music/youtube feeds).
Google is a zombie company, they are dead, they just don't know it yet. Coming soon... Alphabet, a Bending Spoons company.
It’s more like conditioning the posterior of a response on “Ok, so…” lets the model enter a better latent space for answering logically vs just spitting out a random token.
e.g. because of Big VC (a16z, other firms with dozens or hundreds of investing staff), VCs don't stick around firms long enough for real returns (cash distributed) to matter. If you're at a place and your stuff is marked up 10x after 4 years, you just hop to become a GP and try to ride the next markup wave. Even if these people exit VC after 10 years that is still 10 years of deals that all flopped.
This might not even be the individual VC's fault -- there may just be too many venture dollars chasing too few power law returns, so you get a surge of startups circa 2019-2022 that all disappear
> This might not even be the individual VC's fault -- there may just be too many venture dollars chasing too few power law returns, so you get a surge of startups circa 2019-2022 that all disappear
This feels right to me: the common trend between the dotcom bubble, mortgage bubble, tech bubble, blockchain bubble, and now the AI bubble has been big investors very high returns to make up for previous losses, like a gambler trying to win back, and it’s destroyed a lot of companies which had an idea which could have been a sustainable medium-size business but were funded and tried to grow as the next Google/Facebook without apparent recognition of how unusual advertising is for the ability to grow profits rapidly without scaling costs at the same rate.
As is usually the case, check the data! A lot of the dataset used has fairly morbid scenarios, so the model is working as expected. All the data was synthetically created with GPT4
Yes, the climate boogeyman shows up as a common anti-tech trope since most people don’t look into the breakdown of emissions. Basically everything in direct consumer control pales in comparison to transit (car/truck/boat/plane).
I actually think there are a few, only some have achieved critical mass with smaller subnetworks. BlueSky and Threads both seem to have attracted non-tech networks although Threads downranked political content, so BlueSky seems like the natural next mass appeal product.
This is exactly how Ive seen things occur. It makes a lot of sense, given some tools are great new additions (coding especially), but others fall flat (IMO, search)
