Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Jeff Dean explaining Google built a ChatGPT-style chatbot roughly a year before OpenAI released theirs. Tens of thousands of Google employees were already using it and loved it. Leadership still killed any public launch because: • “What if people stop searching on Google?” • “What if it says inaccurate... show more

Linas Beliūnas

11,813 subscribers

388,923 просмотров • 7 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии Образование Новости и политика

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Google wrote the paper that made ChatGPT possible. Then decided not to build ChatGPT. Sergey Brin just explained why on stage at Stanford and the reason is more embarrassing than anyone expected. In 2017, Google published the transformer paper. The architecture that powers every major AI model today. It came from their own researchers. Their own labs. Their own compute. Then they sat on it. Sergey was blunt about why. They underinvested in scaling the compute. They did not take it seriously enough. And when they finally had something worth shipping, they got scared. Chatbots say dumb things. Google had a reputation to protect. So they protected it instead of shipping. OpenAI was not scared. Ilya Sutskever, trained at Google, left and went there. Other Google researchers followed. They took the transformer architecture, scaled it, shipped it anyway, and captured the entire generative AI wave while Google watched. Sergey called it a mistake at Stanford in front of hundreds of students. The company that invented the technology did not build the product. The company that built the product did not invent the technology. That is the most expensive case of corporate hesitation in the history of the industry. --- Watch the full interview YT. Search: "Big ideas begin here: Sergey Brin at Stanford"

Google wrote the paper that made ChatGPT possible. Then decided not to build ChatGPT. Sergey Brin just explained why on stage at Stanford and the reason is more embarrassing than anyone expected. In 2017, Google published the transformer paper. The architecture that powers every major AI model today. It came from their own researchers. Their own labs. Their own compute. Then they sat on it. Sergey was blunt about why. They underinvested in scaling the compute. They did not take it seriously enough. And when they finally had something worth shipping, they got scared. Chatbots say dumb things. Google had a reputation to protect. So they protected it instead of shipping. OpenAI was not scared. Ilya Sutskever, trained at Google, left and went there. Other Google researchers followed. They took the transformer architecture, scaled it, shipped it anyway, and captured the entire generative AI wave while Google watched. Sergey called it a mistake at Stanford in front of hundreds of students. The company that invented the technology did not build the product. The company that built the product did not invent the technology. That is the most expensive case of corporate hesitation in the history of the industry. --- Watch the full interview YT. Search: "Big ideas begin here: Sergey Brin at Stanford"

Ihtesham Ali

244,666 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Sam Altman on competition with Google: ▫️a huge threat ▫️if they had taken OpenAI seriously in 2023, could have “smashed” the startup ▫️Google has “probably the greatest business model” in tech and hesitant to give it up ▫️this is opportunity for OpenAI, since it is redesigning the computing experience from scratch while Google is “bolting AI onto the existing way of doing things” ▫️he believes Google’s approach of “bolting AI” is a weakness “even though they have this huge distribution advantage.”

Sam Altman on competition with Google: ▫️a huge threat ▫️if they had taken OpenAI seriously in 2023, could have “smashed” the startup ▫️Google has “probably the greatest business model” in tech and hesitant to give it up ▫️this is opportunity for OpenAI, since it is redesigning the computing experience from scratch while Google is “bolting AI onto the existing way of doing things” ▫️he believes Google’s approach of “bolting AI” is a weakness “even though they have this huge distribution advantage.”

Bearly AI

412,002 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Google just STOLE Apple away from OpenAI... And it might decide who wins the AI race. Apple announced a multi-year $1 billion deal with Google to power the next generation of Siri using Gemini AI. Not ChatGPT. Gemini. This is the same Apple that 18 months ago announced a partnership with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into iPhones. Everyone thought that meant OpenAI won. Turns out it was an audition. And OpenAI failed. Here's why: June 2024: Apple announces OpenAI partnership. Sam Altman tweets: "very happy to be partnering with apple." Media declares OpenAI the winner of the AI race. December 2025: Sam Altman issues "code red" at OpenAI. Tells everyone to pause everything and ship ChatGPT 5.2 faster. Why the panic? Google released Gemini 3 and it was actually good. January 2026: Apple picks Google. ChatGPT stays as an "optional feature" for complicated queries. But Gemini becomes the DEFAULT intelligence layer for 2 billion Apple devices. The financial reality: Apple pays OpenAI $0 But Apple pays Google $1 BILLION per year That's a verdict. The excuse OpenAI gave for why they did it for free was "exposure to millions of iPhone users." Which basically means "we couldn't negotiate worth shit." Meanwhile Google walked away with both the money AND the distribution. Why Google won: Infrastructure ownership. OpenAI runs on Microsoft's Azure cloud. That creates a dependency chain: Apple → OpenAI → Microsoft. 3 companies. 3 points of failure. Google owns its entire stack. One relationship. Zero middlemen. Apple's statement said Google's technology provides "the most capable foundation." Not "most innovative." Not "best partner." Most CAPABLE. In other words, OpenAI's tech couldn't handle the scale. The Alphabet boost: Google's stock hit $4 trillion market cap after the announcement. Up 65% in 2024 on AI momentum alone. This deal validates Google's pivot from "search company" to "AI infrastructure company." Now they power Samsung's Galaxy AI AND Apple's Siri. Billions of mobile devices running on Gemini. OpenAI's big problem here: Still no profit. Ever. Anthropic is stealing enterprise customers. DeepSeek launched a price war forcing ChatGPT to cut prices. GPT-5 was overhyped and underwhelming. Circular financing deals are getting scrutinized. And now Apple just downgraded them from partner to backup option. That "code red" in December? Too little, too late. The reality everyone's missing: This isn't about chatbot quality. It's about who owns the infrastructure to power billions of devices. Google proved it with Samsung. Now Apple. OpenAI proved it can build a viral product but can't scale it profitably. Very different skill sets. Elon called it "unreasonable concentration of power for Google." He's right. But that's exactly why Apple chose them. Apple doesn't want a startup partner. They want a utility provider. Google is now the default AI for Android AND iOS. OpenAI is relegated to opt-in queries for people who specifically request ChatGPT. That's the difference between infrastructure and feature. The next 12 months: Apple launches Gemini-powered Siri in spring 2026. If it works, every iPhone user defaults to Google's AI. ChatGPT becomes the thing people use when Siri can't answer. The backup plan. My takeaway for entrepreneurs watching this: Distribution beats innovation. Google didn't necessarily build a better chatbot. They built better infrastructure and negotiated better terms. OpenAI won the hype race. Google won the business war. What do you think can save OpenAI now?

Google just STOLE Apple away from OpenAI... And it might decide who wins the AI race. Apple announced a multi-year $1 billion deal with Google to power the next generation of Siri using Gemini AI. Not ChatGPT. Gemini. This is the same Apple that 18 months ago announced a partnership with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into iPhones. Everyone thought that meant OpenAI won. Turns out it was an audition. And OpenAI failed. Here's why: June 2024: Apple announces OpenAI partnership. Sam Altman tweets: "very happy to be partnering with apple." Media declares OpenAI the winner of the AI race. December 2025: Sam Altman issues "code red" at OpenAI. Tells everyone to pause everything and ship ChatGPT 5.2 faster. Why the panic? Google released Gemini 3 and it was actually good. January 2026: Apple picks Google. ChatGPT stays as an "optional feature" for complicated queries. But Gemini becomes the DEFAULT intelligence layer for 2 billion Apple devices. The financial reality: Apple pays OpenAI $0 But Apple pays Google $1 BILLION per year That's a verdict. The excuse OpenAI gave for why they did it for free was "exposure to millions of iPhone users." Which basically means "we couldn't negotiate worth shit." Meanwhile Google walked away with both the money AND the distribution. Why Google won: Infrastructure ownership. OpenAI runs on Microsoft's Azure cloud. That creates a dependency chain: Apple → OpenAI → Microsoft. 3 companies. 3 points of failure. Google owns its entire stack. One relationship. Zero middlemen. Apple's statement said Google's technology provides "the most capable foundation." Not "most innovative." Not "best partner." Most CAPABLE. In other words, OpenAI's tech couldn't handle the scale. The Alphabet boost: Google's stock hit $4 trillion market cap after the announcement. Up 65% in 2024 on AI momentum alone. This deal validates Google's pivot from "search company" to "AI infrastructure company." Now they power Samsung's Galaxy AI AND Apple's Siri. Billions of mobile devices running on Gemini. OpenAI's big problem here: Still no profit. Ever. Anthropic is stealing enterprise customers. DeepSeek launched a price war forcing ChatGPT to cut prices. GPT-5 was overhyped and underwhelming. Circular financing deals are getting scrutinized. And now Apple just downgraded them from partner to backup option. That "code red" in December? Too little, too late. The reality everyone's missing: This isn't about chatbot quality. It's about who owns the infrastructure to power billions of devices. Google proved it with Samsung. Now Apple. OpenAI proved it can build a viral product but can't scale it profitably. Very different skill sets. Elon called it "unreasonable concentration of power for Google." He's right. But that's exactly why Apple chose them. Apple doesn't want a startup partner. They want a utility provider. Google is now the default AI for Android AND iOS. OpenAI is relegated to opt-in queries for people who specifically request ChatGPT. That's the difference between infrastructure and feature. The next 12 months: Apple launches Gemini-powered Siri in spring 2026. If it works, every iPhone user defaults to Google's AI. ChatGPT becomes the thing people use when Siri can't answer. The backup plan. My takeaway for entrepreneurs watching this: Distribution beats innovation. Google didn't necessarily build a better chatbot. They built better infrastructure and negotiated better terms. OpenAI won the hype race. Google won the business war. What do you think can save OpenAI now?

Ricardo

50,720 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

ELON: “GOOGLE CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE. NO ONE STOPPED AI.” “Google kinda controlled the White House at that time. The CIO was ex-Google, so they put the brakes on any AI regulation. We still don’t have any AI regulation at the federal level. If I got something unconstitutional from the government, I’d send them a copy of the First Amendment and ask – what part of this are we getting wrong?" Source: Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson

ELON: “GOOGLE CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE. NO ONE STOPPED AI.” “Google kinda controlled the White House at that time. The CIO was ex-Google, so they put the brakes on any AI regulation. We still don’t have any AI regulation at the federal level. If I got something unconstitutional from the government, I’d send them a copy of the First Amendment and ask – what part of this are we getting wrong?" Source: Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson

Mario Nawfal

51,420 просмотров • 1 год назад

BREAKING NEWS: APPLE AND GOOGLE INTEGRATES CRYPTO WALLET😱😱 Charles Hoskinson says “All it takes is one update, Google or Apple could turn every phone into a crypto wallet instantly. They built the tech, they have blockchain teams, it’s game on if they enter.” Are blockchain communities ready for an influx of billions from Google and Apple’s user base?

BREAKING NEWS: APPLE AND GOOGLE INTEGRATES CRYPTO WALLET😱😱 Charles Hoskinson says “All it takes is one update, Google or Apple could turn every phone into a crypto wallet instantly. They built the tech, they have blockchain teams, it’s game on if they enter.” Are blockchain communities ready for an influx of billions from Google and Apple’s user base?

Mintern

64,578 просмотров • 1 год назад

🇺🇸 A chemical tank in suburban Los Angeles spent five days on the verge of exploding and taking tens of thousands of people with it. The crisis is over. Not because firefighters solved it, but because the tank cracked on its own and released the pressure before it could blow. Tens of thousands are still under evacuation orders. The chemical is still there. They just got lucky. Source: Reuters

🇺🇸 A chemical tank in suburban Los Angeles spent five days on the verge of exploding and taking tens of thousands of people with it. The crisis is over. Not because firefighters solved it, but because the tank cracked on its own and released the pressure before it could blow. Tens of thousands are still under evacuation orders. The chemical is still there. They just got lucky. Source: Reuters

Mario Nawfal

105,908 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

SOMEONE VIBE CODED A CHROME EXTENSION THAT DISGUISES CLAUDE AS A GOOGLE DOC SO YOU CAN USE AI IN PUBLIC it wraps ai in a fake google docs interface, so on your screen it just looks like youre typing a document, not prompting a chatbot what it does: > works with chatgpt and claude > you just type your question like a normal line in a doc and the answer comes back right there on the page > microsoft word and notion style themes too, so you can pick your disguise > rebuilt to properly support multiple ai models behind the doc > the google docs look is the default its a chrome extension called gptdisguise this is genius. a lot of people are embarrassed to be seen using ai in public (school, work, etc). someone just built the fix.

SOMEONE VIBE CODED A CHROME EXTENSION THAT DISGUISES CLAUDE AS A GOOGLE DOC SO YOU CAN USE AI IN PUBLIC it wraps ai in a fake google docs interface, so on your screen it just looks like youre typing a document, not prompting a chatbot what it does: > works with chatgpt and claude > you just type your question like a normal line in a doc and the answer comes back right there on the page > microsoft word and notion style themes too, so you can pick your disguise > rebuilt to properly support multiple ai models behind the doc > the google docs look is the default its a chrome extension called gptdisguise this is genius. a lot of people are embarrassed to be seen using ai in public (school, work, etc). someone just built the fix.

Om Patel

1,695,256 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

$GOOGL CEO Sundar Pichai on why Google didn't ship ChatGPT first, and the signal they missed from OpenAI: We even conceived the product, it was Lambda. There was an engineer inside who thought it was sentient. Think of it as an early version of ChatGPT. In the multiverse, Google probably shipped that 9 months earlier... but the version I saw was a lot more toxic at a level we couldn't have possibly put it out. As a company with this search quality bias, we had a higher bar for what we thought was acceptable product quality. I think they were lucky to also see it on the coding side with GitHub. Maybe there was a signal we were missing. The jumps between GPT-2 and 3 and later 4 were more pronounced if you were using it for coding.

$GOOGL CEO Sundar Pichai on why Google didn't ship ChatGPT first, and the signal they missed from OpenAI: We even conceived the product, it was Lambda. There was an engineer inside who thought it was sentient. Think of it as an early version of ChatGPT. In the multiverse, Google probably shipped that 9 months earlier... but the version I saw was a lot more toxic at a level we couldn't have possibly put it out. As a company with this search quality bias, we had a higher bar for what we thought was acceptable product quality. I think they were lucky to also see it on the coding side with GitHub. Maybe there was a signal we were missing. The jumps between GPT-2 and 3 and later 4 were more pronounced if you were using it for coding.

Wall St Engine

150,584 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt on what many of the greatest products have in common "If you think about the greatest products, they've almost always been designed for the benefit of the people who are actually building them." Uber is one example. The original Uber was a private timeshare limousine service for Garrett Camp and his friends. Google is another: “Larry and Sergey built Google for Stanford—and particularly for themselves. The server was in Larry’s dorm room…. They opened up the server for the entire campus, and the usage was phenomenal. Andy Bechtolsheim heard about it through David Cheriton and wrote a $100,000 check. They didn’t have a name for a company… Sergey left it in his wallet for a month until they had the name Google invented.” Video source: Greylock Partners (2015)

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt on what many of the greatest products have in common "If you think about the greatest products, they've almost always been designed for the benefit of the people who are actually building them." Uber is one example. The original Uber was a private timeshare limousine service for Garrett Camp and his friends. Google is another: “Larry and Sergey built Google for Stanford—and particularly for themselves. The server was in Larry’s dorm room…. They opened up the server for the entire campus, and the usage was phenomenal. Andy Bechtolsheim heard about it through David Cheriton and wrote a $100,000 check. They didn’t have a name for a company… Sergey left it in his wallet for a month until they had the name Google invented.” Video source: Greylock Partners (2015)

Startup Archive

69,401 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Google just quit the AI race on purpose, and it is about to make MORE money than everyone still running it. 4 of the most cited AI researchers alive walked out of Google in a single afternoon. Jeff Dean, the man who built the systems Google runs on, gone after 27 years. Sanjay Ghemawat, his longtime partner, gone. Oriol Vinyals, a Gemini co-lead, gone. Quoc Le, a Google Brain co-founder, gone. That same day, Demis Hassabis stepped back from running DeepMind. Hassabis co-founded the lab, won a Nobel Prize for AlphaFold, and had been the face of Google AI for a decade. The stock dropped 5% within hours. Analysts called it a brain drain. Headlines called it the day Google fell behind. But turns out that's completely wrong, because the numbers underneath tell a completely different story: Google is not trying to win the frontier model race anymore. It looked at where the money is and walked toward it. Gemini, Google's flagship model business, generated about $12 billion in annual revenue last quarter. That is the entire payoff from competing head to head with OpenAI and Anthropic. Now look at the other number. By the end of 2027, Google Cloud is projected to do over $73 billion selling AI infrastructure to other companies, plus another $120 billion selling its TPU chips. That is roughly $200 billion of external sales at high margins, against a $12 billion model business. Google understood that the frontier race is the expensive part while selling the shovels is the profitable part. And the customers buying those shovels include Google's own rivals. Over 20% of Google's TPU shipments for 2026 and 2027 are going to Anthropic, one of the two labs supposedly beating Gemini. Google now makes money every time Anthropic trains a model designed to crush Google's OWN product. Cede the frontier, own the layer underneath it, and collect a toll from everyone racing across the top. The researchers leaving is the symptom of a company that already decided models are not where it wins. Jeff Dean said it himself on the way out. He told the New York Times that leaving a public company gives him room to make decisions "not necessarily in the company's purist financial interests." Read that from Google's side: The people who wanted to chase the science left, because Google is now optimizing for the FINANCIAL interest. Gemini 3.5 Pro is running months behind, with staff blaming low morale. DeepMind's comms, legal, and marketing teams are being folded into Google proper. A former manager told the Guardian the era of DeepMind as an independent lab is over. None of that reads as failure once you see the strategy. Yet Wall Street is pricing this as Google losing. The parallel that should worry the frontier labs: If open weight models keep compressing the price of inference, being the best model stops being a business. It becomes like semiconductor fabrication, strategically vital and financially brutal, a race you win and still lose money running. Google is the first giant to admit that. The company that invented the transformer just handed the frontier to OpenAI and Anthropic, and positioned itself to get paid on every model both of them ship. Those labs will be burning billions to stay one benchmark ahead, and Google will be cashing in hundreds of billions from it. The model business is actually just a race where everyone loses. Apple understood that from the get-go and never joined the race, Google understood it now and left it to OpenAI and Anthropic. Who will go bankrupt first?

Google just quit the AI race on purpose, and it is about to make MORE money than everyone still running it. 4 of the most cited AI researchers alive walked out of Google in a single afternoon. Jeff Dean, the man who built the systems Google runs on, gone after 27 years. Sanjay Ghemawat, his longtime partner, gone. Oriol Vinyals, a Gemini co-lead, gone. Quoc Le, a Google Brain co-founder, gone. That same day, Demis Hassabis stepped back from running DeepMind. Hassabis co-founded the lab, won a Nobel Prize for AlphaFold, and had been the face of Google AI for a decade. The stock dropped 5% within hours. Analysts called it a brain drain. Headlines called it the day Google fell behind. But turns out that's completely wrong, because the numbers underneath tell a completely different story: Google is not trying to win the frontier model race anymore. It looked at where the money is and walked toward it. Gemini, Google's flagship model business, generated about $12 billion in annual revenue last quarter. That is the entire payoff from competing head to head with OpenAI and Anthropic. Now look at the other number. By the end of 2027, Google Cloud is projected to do over $73 billion selling AI infrastructure to other companies, plus another $120 billion selling its TPU chips. That is roughly $200 billion of external sales at high margins, against a $12 billion model business. Google understood that the frontier race is the expensive part while selling the shovels is the profitable part. And the customers buying those shovels include Google's own rivals. Over 20% of Google's TPU shipments for 2026 and 2027 are going to Anthropic, one of the two labs supposedly beating Gemini. Google now makes money every time Anthropic trains a model designed to crush Google's OWN product. Cede the frontier, own the layer underneath it, and collect a toll from everyone racing across the top. The researchers leaving is the symptom of a company that already decided models are not where it wins. Jeff Dean said it himself on the way out. He told the New York Times that leaving a public company gives him room to make decisions "not necessarily in the company's purist financial interests." Read that from Google's side: The people who wanted to chase the science left, because Google is now optimizing for the FINANCIAL interest. Gemini 3.5 Pro is running months behind, with staff blaming low morale. DeepMind's comms, legal, and marketing teams are being folded into Google proper. A former manager told the Guardian the era of DeepMind as an independent lab is over. None of that reads as failure once you see the strategy. Yet Wall Street is pricing this as Google losing. The parallel that should worry the frontier labs: If open weight models keep compressing the price of inference, being the best model stops being a business. It becomes like semiconductor fabrication, strategically vital and financially brutal, a race you win and still lose money running. Google is the first giant to admit that. The company that invented the transformer just handed the frontier to OpenAI and Anthropic, and positioned itself to get paid on every model both of them ship. Those labs will be burning billions to stay one benchmark ahead, and Google will be cashing in hundreds of billions from it. The model business is actually just a race where everyone loses. Apple understood that from the get-go and never joined the race, Google understood it now and left it to OpenAI and Anthropic. Who will go bankrupt first?

Ricardo

225,254 просмотров • 1 день назад

Sundar Pichai just made the quietest power move in AI. No manifesto. No AGI timeline. No grand declaration. He pointed at the budget. Pichai: “We probably have scaled our CapEx from 30 billion to approximately 180 billion.” One hundred and eighty billion dollars. That’s not a bet. That’s a verdict. Pichai: “You don’t do it if you don’t think about the curve a certain way.” You don’t move that kind of capital on a maybe. You move it because you’ve already seen what’s on the other side. You build the road while everyone else is still arguing about the map. While every other lab publishes timelines and debates definitions, Google pointed a hundred and eighty billion dollars in the direction of the answer. Money doesn’t have a narrative. Money is the narrative. Then Pichai dropped something most people blew right past. Pichai: “At one point, Demis, Jeff, Ilya, Dario were all there.” Demis Hassabis. Now running DeepMind. Jeff Dean. Still at Google. Ilya Sutskever. Co-founded OpenAI. Dario Amodei. Founded Anthropic. Same building. Same era. Same institution. Every major AI lab in the world traces back to one hallway. The narrative says Google is playing catch-up. The talent tree says Google is the root system. Pichai: “This notion that at Google we haven’t understood what AGI is… that doesn’t make sense to me.” It shouldn’t. And deep down, the industry knows it. The perception gap exists because Google doesn’t perform its conviction. It funds it. Startups need the AGI story. It’s how they raise. How they recruit. How they justify valuations built on slides and timelines instead of silicon. Google doesn’t need the story. It has the infrastructure. The data. The distribution. Seven generations of custom silicon. And the quiet certainty of a company that watched every major AI leader walk out the front door and still didn’t flinch. A hundred and eighty billion dollars. No press conference. No keynote. No manifesto. Just concrete. The AI race won’t be won by whoever says AGI first. It’ll be won by whoever poured the concrete everyone else is standing on.

Sundar Pichai just made the quietest power move in AI. No manifesto. No AGI timeline. No grand declaration. He pointed at the budget. Pichai: “We probably have scaled our CapEx from 30 billion to approximately 180 billion.” One hundred and eighty billion dollars. That’s not a bet. That’s a verdict. Pichai: “You don’t do it if you don’t think about the curve a certain way.” You don’t move that kind of capital on a maybe. You move it because you’ve already seen what’s on the other side. You build the road while everyone else is still arguing about the map. While every other lab publishes timelines and debates definitions, Google pointed a hundred and eighty billion dollars in the direction of the answer. Money doesn’t have a narrative. Money is the narrative. Then Pichai dropped something most people blew right past. Pichai: “At one point, Demis, Jeff, Ilya, Dario were all there.” Demis Hassabis. Now running DeepMind. Jeff Dean. Still at Google. Ilya Sutskever. Co-founded OpenAI. Dario Amodei. Founded Anthropic. Same building. Same era. Same institution. Every major AI lab in the world traces back to one hallway. The narrative says Google is playing catch-up. The talent tree says Google is the root system. Pichai: “This notion that at Google we haven’t understood what AGI is… that doesn’t make sense to me.” It shouldn’t. And deep down, the industry knows it. The perception gap exists because Google doesn’t perform its conviction. It funds it. Startups need the AGI story. It’s how they raise. How they recruit. How they justify valuations built on slides and timelines instead of silicon. Google doesn’t need the story. It has the infrastructure. The data. The distribution. Seven generations of custom silicon. And the quiet certainty of a company that watched every major AI leader walk out the front door and still didn’t flinch. A hundred and eighty billion dollars. No press conference. No keynote. No manifesto. Just concrete. The AI race won’t be won by whoever says AGI first. It’ll be won by whoever poured the concrete everyone else is standing on.

Dustin

36,891 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Demis Hassabis said that 90% of the breakthroughs the entire AI industry runs on came out of Google. Every competitor is building on work his teams did first. He said it without flinching. Over the last decade, he claims 90% or more of the big breakthroughs that underpin modern AI came from Google Brain or DeepMind. Transformers. AlphaGo. The reinforcement learning everything now depends on. Transformers are the T in GPT. The architecture that made every large language model possible came out of Google in 2017, in a paper called Attention Is All You Need. His point was simple. Every rival lab is running on foundations his people poured. But here is what he left out. Of the eight authors who wrote that transformer paper, all eight left Google. They went on to found or join OpenAI, Anthropic, and their own startups now worth billions. Google invented the engine. Then watched the inventors walk out the door and build the competition. He says Google still has the biggest research bench of any lab on earth, and the talent war is the most ferocious tech has ever seen. Everyone treats this race like the labs are evenly matched. The man who started fifteen years early does not see it that way. The people who left with his blueprint might be the reason he has to keep proving it. (Watch the full interview at Semafor on YouTube)

Demis Hassabis said that 90% of the breakthroughs the entire AI industry runs on came out of Google. Every competitor is building on work his teams did first. He said it without flinching. Over the last decade, he claims 90% or more of the big breakthroughs that underpin modern AI came from Google Brain or DeepMind. Transformers. AlphaGo. The reinforcement learning everything now depends on. Transformers are the T in GPT. The architecture that made every large language model possible came out of Google in 2017, in a paper called Attention Is All You Need. His point was simple. Every rival lab is running on foundations his people poured. But here is what he left out. Of the eight authors who wrote that transformer paper, all eight left Google. They went on to found or join OpenAI, Anthropic, and their own startups now worth billions. Google invented the engine. Then watched the inventors walk out the door and build the competition. He says Google still has the biggest research bench of any lab on earth, and the talent war is the most ferocious tech has ever seen. Everyone treats this race like the labs are evenly matched. The man who started fifteen years early does not see it that way. The people who left with his blueprint might be the reason he has to keep proving it. (Watch the full interview at Semafor on YouTube)

Ihtesham Ali

35,961 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

You are the habits you create and your habits are built by a way of thinking. What if YOUR private and personal local AI can help you help build the right habits? What would your world look like? “OpenAI” or Google isn’t going to sell this. It will be FREE and open source.

You are the habits you create and your habits are built by a way of thinking. What if YOUR private and personal local AI can help you help build the right habits? What would your world look like? “OpenAI” or Google isn’t going to sell this. It will be FREE and open source.

Brian Roemmele

124,200 просмотров • 1 год назад

The biggest losers in the Google traffic collapse aren't the people who ignored SEO. They're the people who mastered it. For years, businesses built everything around answering questions Google could rank, then Google learned to answer those questions itself. But losing traffic is just the symptom. The real problem is that most companies never owned their audience, they rented it from Google, and the landlord just changed the rules. In this video I break down why the old model is breaking, who gets hit hardest, and why HubSpot could lose most of its organic traffic and still grow revenue. Because clicks and demand were never the same thing, and the brand is the part you actually keep.

Neil Patel

16,222 просмотров • 21 дней назад

Google just completely BETRAYED its principles and people. In 2018, 4,000 Google employees signed a letter demanding the company to stop helping the Pentagon use AI for drone strikes. Google listened. They dropped the contract and published a pledge promising they would NEVER use AI for weapons or surveillance. But Google just signed a $200 million deal to put its most powerful AI on the Pentagon's classified networks for "any lawful purpose." And the story behind how they got from Point A to Point B is one of the most calculated corporate betrayals in Silicon Valley history. Here's what happened: The 2018 protest was over Project Maven, a Pentagon program that used Google's AI to identify targets in drone footage. Employees said "Google should not be in the business of war." A dozen engineers quit. Thousands more signed petitions. Google folded and let the contract expire. Then they published their famous AI Principles: 1. No weapons 2. No surveillance 3. No technologies that cause harm Sundar Pichai personally announced them. That pledge lasted exactly as long as the contracts didn't matter. Because here's what Google did quietly over the next 7 years while everyone thought they were the "ethical" AI company: December 2022: Won a share of the Pentagon's $9 billion Joint Warfighting Cloud contract alongside Amazon, Microsoft, and Oracle. 2024: Deployed Gemini to 3 million Pentagon personnel. February 2025: Quietly DELETED the weapons and surveillance language from their AI Principles. No announcement or press conference. April 2026: Signed the classified deal with the Pentagon for "any lawful government purpose." They didn't have a change of heart. They had a change of revenue. And the timing of this deal is where it gets really dark: 600 Google employees, including 20+ directors and VPs from DeepMind, sent a letter to Pichai on Monday begging him not to sign. The letter said the only way to guarantee Google's AI wouldn't be used for lethal autonomous weapons or mass surveillance was to reject classified workloads entirely, because once the technology enters air-gapped military networks, nobody at Google can see what happens to it. But Google literally signed the deal WHILE THE EMPLOYEES SLEPT. One Google AI researcher told Business Insider: "When I went to bed yesterday, I was hopeful that the employee letter would have an effect. This morning I woke up to the worst-case version of the contract being signed." The contract says Google has NO right to control or veto how the government uses its AI. The Pentagon can request Google to adjust its AI safety settings. And the deal covers classified networks where Google employees cannot monitor what's being done with their own technology. They handed over the keys and gave up the right to ask what the car is being used for. Meanwhile Anthropic got BLACKLISTED as a "supply chain risk" for asking for two restrictions: No mass surveillance of Americans and no fully autonomous weapons without a human pressing the button. The Pentagon treated an American company like a foreign adversary for requesting the exact same principles Google publicly pledged in 2018 and then quietly deleted. The math sums up the whole story: Project Maven in 2018 was worth a few million dollars. Google walked away and got applauded for having principles. The classified AI market in 2026 is worth tens of billions. Google deleted the principles and signed the deal at midnight. Palantir took over Project Maven after Google dropped it. That investment grew to $13 billion. Google watched a competitor make billions off the contract they abandoned for ethics and decided that would never happen again. In 2018, principles beat profits. In 2026, profits buried the principles. Google sold their soul for money.

Google just completely BETRAYED its principles and people. In 2018, 4,000 Google employees signed a letter demanding the company to stop helping the Pentagon use AI for drone strikes. Google listened. They dropped the contract and published a pledge promising they would NEVER use AI for weapons or surveillance. But Google just signed a $200 million deal to put its most powerful AI on the Pentagon's classified networks for "any lawful purpose." And the story behind how they got from Point A to Point B is one of the most calculated corporate betrayals in Silicon Valley history. Here's what happened: The 2018 protest was over Project Maven, a Pentagon program that used Google's AI to identify targets in drone footage. Employees said "Google should not be in the business of war." A dozen engineers quit. Thousands more signed petitions. Google folded and let the contract expire. Then they published their famous AI Principles: 1. No weapons 2. No surveillance 3. No technologies that cause harm Sundar Pichai personally announced them. That pledge lasted exactly as long as the contracts didn't matter. Because here's what Google did quietly over the next 7 years while everyone thought they were the "ethical" AI company: December 2022: Won a share of the Pentagon's $9 billion Joint Warfighting Cloud contract alongside Amazon, Microsoft, and Oracle. 2024: Deployed Gemini to 3 million Pentagon personnel. February 2025: Quietly DELETED the weapons and surveillance language from their AI Principles. No announcement or press conference. April 2026: Signed the classified deal with the Pentagon for "any lawful government purpose." They didn't have a change of heart. They had a change of revenue. And the timing of this deal is where it gets really dark: 600 Google employees, including 20+ directors and VPs from DeepMind, sent a letter to Pichai on Monday begging him not to sign. The letter said the only way to guarantee Google's AI wouldn't be used for lethal autonomous weapons or mass surveillance was to reject classified workloads entirely, because once the technology enters air-gapped military networks, nobody at Google can see what happens to it. But Google literally signed the deal WHILE THE EMPLOYEES SLEPT. One Google AI researcher told Business Insider: "When I went to bed yesterday, I was hopeful that the employee letter would have an effect. This morning I woke up to the worst-case version of the contract being signed." The contract says Google has NO right to control or veto how the government uses its AI. The Pentagon can request Google to adjust its AI safety settings. And the deal covers classified networks where Google employees cannot monitor what's being done with their own technology. They handed over the keys and gave up the right to ask what the car is being used for. Meanwhile Anthropic got BLACKLISTED as a "supply chain risk" for asking for two restrictions: No mass surveillance of Americans and no fully autonomous weapons without a human pressing the button. The Pentagon treated an American company like a foreign adversary for requesting the exact same principles Google publicly pledged in 2018 and then quietly deleted. The math sums up the whole story: Project Maven in 2018 was worth a few million dollars. Google walked away and got applauded for having principles. The classified AI market in 2026 is worth tens of billions. Google deleted the principles and signed the deal at midnight. Palantir took over Project Maven after Google dropped it. That investment grew to $13 billion. Google watched a competitor make billions off the contract they abandoned for ethics and decided that would never happen again. In 2018, principles beat profits. In 2026, profits buried the principles. Google sold their soul for money.

Ricardo

27,550 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Google just pulled off the biggest theft in the history of AI. And their OWN documents exposed it... Three of the largest publishers on Earth, Hachette, Cengage, and Elsevier, just sued Google in federal court, alongside best-selling author Scott Turow. Their claim is that Google built Gemini, its flagship AI, on millions of copyrighted works it never paid for or licensed. This is one of the biggest copyright cases ever aimed at an AI company: Before they trained Gemini, an internal Google document allegedly spelled out the risk directly. Using this material could expose the company to "$10Bs-$100Bs in potential fines." Google's own people put a number on the theft, in the tens of billions, but the company moved ahead anyway. Then it allegedly tried to DELETE the evidence... The complaint says Google stripped the copyright information off the works before feeding them into Gemini, so nobody could trace what the model had actually been trained on. Pull the fingerprints off first, and the theft gets much harder to prove later. And there's a second betrayal underneath the first: Most of this material was not scraped from some random corner of the internet. Publishers had handed it to Google years earlier for a narrow purpose, to make their catalogs searchable inside Google's own services. The lawsuit says Google took that trust and repurposed the content to build a machine that now competes directly with the people who supplied it. And that machine is the entire point. The complaint describes Gemini producing a full-length substitute for a copyrighted work in about 20 minutes. Something an author spent years writing can now be cloned in an afternoon by the company that trained on the original. No writer or publisher survives that. So why does this case matter more than the dozen other AI copyright fights? Because most of them turn on a fuzzy fair-use question argued years after the fact. This one arrives with an internal document that allegedly SHOWS Google weighed the cost of getting caught and trained on the material anyway. A jury does not need a law degree to read that. The fight now moves toward discovery, where Google's internal emails and training records get dragged into the open. If those files back up what the complaint claims, that $100 billion will turn into a real liability. Google spent years telling the world it was organizing information for everyone. Its own documents show it knew exactly whose information it was taking, and what the price of getting caught would be.

Google just pulled off the biggest theft in the history of AI. And their OWN documents exposed it... Three of the largest publishers on Earth, Hachette, Cengage, and Elsevier, just sued Google in federal court, alongside best-selling author Scott Turow. Their claim is that Google built Gemini, its flagship AI, on millions of copyrighted works it never paid for or licensed. This is one of the biggest copyright cases ever aimed at an AI company: Before they trained Gemini, an internal Google document allegedly spelled out the risk directly. Using this material could expose the company to "$10Bs-$100Bs in potential fines." Google's own people put a number on the theft, in the tens of billions, but the company moved ahead anyway. Then it allegedly tried to DELETE the evidence... The complaint says Google stripped the copyright information off the works before feeding them into Gemini, so nobody could trace what the model had actually been trained on. Pull the fingerprints off first, and the theft gets much harder to prove later. And there's a second betrayal underneath the first: Most of this material was not scraped from some random corner of the internet. Publishers had handed it to Google years earlier for a narrow purpose, to make their catalogs searchable inside Google's own services. The lawsuit says Google took that trust and repurposed the content to build a machine that now competes directly with the people who supplied it. And that machine is the entire point. The complaint describes Gemini producing a full-length substitute for a copyrighted work in about 20 minutes. Something an author spent years writing can now be cloned in an afternoon by the company that trained on the original. No writer or publisher survives that. So why does this case matter more than the dozen other AI copyright fights? Because most of them turn on a fuzzy fair-use question argued years after the fact. This one arrives with an internal document that allegedly SHOWS Google weighed the cost of getting caught and trained on the material anyway. A jury does not need a law degree to read that. The fight now moves toward discovery, where Google's internal emails and training records get dragged into the open. If those files back up what the complaint claims, that $100 billion will turn into a real liability. Google spent years telling the world it was organizing information for everyone. Its own documents show it knew exactly whose information it was taking, and what the price of getting caught would be.

Ricardo

26,001 просмотров • 26 дней назад

THIS GUY IS 25 AND MAKES $50,000 A MONTH USING CLAUDE AND GOOGLE MAPS his strategy is simpler than it sounds he finds local businesses through google maps takes the company’s website, photos, reviews, and info from google then uploads all of it into ai the ai analyzes the business and automatically creates ready-made solutions for the client, from new websites to apps and marketing materials basically, he’s selling digital transformation to business owners without a team of developers how to do it: find a business with an outdated website on google maps collect information about the company upload the data into claude generate a new website or app show the demo to the owner and close the deal thousands of local businesses are still running on websites from 2015 for ai, that’s one of the easiest opportunities to make money while most people are looking for startup ideas others are selling ready-made solutions to businesses that already exist

THIS GUY IS 25 AND MAKES $50,000 A MONTH USING CLAUDE AND GOOGLE MAPS his strategy is simpler than it sounds he finds local businesses through google maps takes the company’s website, photos, reviews, and info from google then uploads all of it into ai the ai analyzes the business and automatically creates ready-made solutions for the client, from new websites to apps and marketing materials basically, he’s selling digital transformation to business owners without a team of developers how to do it: find a business with an outdated website on google maps collect information about the company upload the data into claude generate a new website or app show the demo to the owner and close the deal thousands of local businesses are still running on websites from 2015 for ai, that’s one of the easiest opportunities to make money while most people are looking for startup ideas others are selling ready-made solutions to businesses that already exist

Marvin

40,490 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🇺🇸 🇨🇳 GOOGLE’S GEMINI JUST STARTED THE REAL AI WAR WITH CHINA All In podcast co-host David Friedberg analyzed the rapidly shifting AI landscape, revealing that the intensifying technology supremacy battle with China is driving innovation while OpenAI's ChatGPT monopoly crumbles as Google Gemini captures major market share: "We are now in a race for supremacy in technology and AI against China. ChatGPT was basically the market monopoly, and it only had one way to go, which was down. A little over a year ago they were at 90% plus market share. Today, Gemini is at 14-15%. The flywheel that Google has built gives them such extraordinary advantage." OpenAI had first-mover advantage and cultural momentum. Google had everything else: distribution, integration, data, and infinite resources. Turns out that matters more than being first. Source: The All-In Podcast

🇺🇸 🇨🇳 GOOGLE’S GEMINI JUST STARTED THE REAL AI WAR WITH CHINA All In podcast co-host David Friedberg analyzed the rapidly shifting AI landscape, revealing that the intensifying technology supremacy battle with China is driving innovation while OpenAI's ChatGPT monopoly crumbles as Google Gemini captures major market share: "We are now in a race for supremacy in technology and AI against China. ChatGPT was basically the market monopoly, and it only had one way to go, which was down. A little over a year ago they were at 90% plus market share. Today, Gemini is at 14-15%. The flywheel that Google has built gives them such extraordinary advantage." OpenAI had first-mover advantage and cultural momentum. Google had everything else: distribution, integration, data, and infinite resources. Turns out that matters more than being first. Source: The All-In Podcast

Mario Nawfal

51,954 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

Ricardo

250,930 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад