Google has spent billions building Gemini and pushing employees to use its own AI tools, but when it comes to getting engineers to work faster, even Google is willing to turn to a rival.
【非共识】文章暗示Google在AI工具上存在战略矛盾，尽管投入巨资开发Gemini，但仍需依赖竞争对手的Claude提高工程师效率。这一非共识观点值得深入调查，验证Google内部AI工具的实际性能差异以及公司战略调整的真实动机。
These departures are part of a concerning trend for Google. Last week, legendary AI researcher Noam Shazeer announced that he was leaving Google for OpenAI.
大多数人可能认为Google的AI人才流失是暂时现象或个别案例，但作者将其描述为'令人担忧的趋势'。这挑战了'科技巨头偶尔的人才流失是正常现象'的普遍认知，暗示Google可能面临更深层的人才战略问题。
谷歌在沉寂了很长时间以后，终于发了一个不错的模型，而且还是开源的 Gamma 4 系列。专门用来在本地设备（比如手机、电脑）上跑
大多数人认为谷歌作为 AI 领域的领导者会持续专注于云端大模型，但其突然转向端侧开源模型的做法令人意外。这种战略转变表明谷歌可能重新评估了 AI 部署的未来方向，从集中式向分布式转变，挑战了'更大模型更好'的行业共识，暗示了端侧 AI 可能成为下一个技术热点。
Google killed SG&E about one year after Stadia launched, before the studio had released a game or done any public work. In a blog post announcing Stadia's pivot to a "platform technology," Stadia VP Phil Harrison explained the decision to shutter SG&E, saying, "Creating best-in-class games from the ground up takes many years and significant investment, and the cost is going up exponentially."
I suspect Google wanted faster, more measurable results than is possible with game development. There's a reason why tech companies are vastly more profitable than game companies.
I don't particularly see the shame in changing a strategy that isn't working. As an early user of Stadia I do see the lost potential though, maybe that's where this is coming from.
This is interesting for many reasons, and it is especially interesting for content strategists. It shows how closely different semiotic practices/forms of content are interrelated, e.g. emails and official statements. It also shows how difficult it is to distinguish between content strategy and propaganda. Via Jeff Jarvis auf Twitter
Bento, A. I., Nguyen, T., Wing, C., Lozano-Rojas, F., Ahn, Y.-Y., & Simon, K. (2020). Evidence from internet search data shows information-seeking responses to news of local COVID-19 cases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 202005335. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005335117