> There were so many naysayers claiming there would be no real use for it

Do not believe this was at all true. When Steve Jobs showed the iPad people were pretty amazed right off the bat.

I mean it was basically this piece of glass that was pretty thin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fk1V5NqoD4

That is NOT how patent law works. Maybe you are confusing with trademark?

> I agree, but what I'm saying is that Deepmind is gonna stop publishing their good stuff. And it's not because of OpenAI.

I do not believe that will happen. But the behavior of OpenAI does not help.

But Google has been more of a leader than a follower so hopefully the crappy behavior by OpenAI does not change anything.

I think the sharing of the research papers was done for a variety of reasons.

First, I fully agree to keep and retain talent. Which Google understood before others that was going to be critical. Why they were able to get DeepMind for $500 million and that would by easily 20x that today.

But the other reason is data. Nobody has more data than Google and also access to more data.

Google has the most popular web site in history and then the second most popular in addition. Then they also have the most popular operating system in history.

So if everyone had access to the same models it still keeps Google in a better position.

But the other reason is Google touches more people than any other company by a wide margin. Google now has 10 different services with over a billion daily active users.

Then the last reason is their hope that someone would not get something they can not get. I believe Google's goal from day 1 has always been AGI. That is what search has been about since pretty much day 1.

They worry that someone will figure it out in some basement somewhere. Very unlikely. But possible. If they can help drive a culture of sharing then it is far less likely to happen.

Love how much DeepMind shares with the papers. Same with Google Brain.

To me the issue is OpenAI. What makes it worse is they use breakthroughs from DeepMind, Google Brain and others and then do not share.

We call them filtches

> Post mean things?

Not the terminology I would choose. But yes post things that they should not be doing this. Public opinion is a very, very powerful tool to get people to behave.

Exactly. I do not like that OpenAI looks to be changing the culture of sharing.

> That's not how capitalism works.

Totally get that it makes no business sense that Google gives away so much stuff. Look at Android. They let Amazon use it for all their stuff.

But I still love it. I wish more companies rolled like Google. They feel like lifting all boats also lifts theirs.

Google being the AI leader for the last decade plus they have set a way of doing things.

OpenAI is not doing the same and that really sucks. I hope the others will not follow the approach by OpenAI and instead continue to roll like they have.

> Which is exactly how Google uses most of its other patents, as a club to beat competitors with.

That is ridiculous. Where has Google gone after anyone? They do it purely for defensive purposes.

Exactly. That is why there should be push back on OpenAI behavior.

But it has been up to this point. ChatGPT is based on a technology breakthrough by Google.

There should be strong push back on OpenAI behavior. Otherwise we might end up with Google and others now sharing their incredible breakthroughs.

It is a pretty scummy move. They would not have been able to create ChatGPT without Google's breakthrough with transformers.

Luckily Google let them use it instead of protecting.

That is how we moving everything forward.

Things have really accelerated and think things will already be very crazy before 2030. Look at some of the self driving videos from Waymo. They are already in Phoenix and SF and now accounced the second biggest US city, LA.

Also now handling driving in the rain. I would expect it will be pretty well deployed by 2030.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avdpprICvNI

Geeze. Read it again. I said no action in terms of browser.

You are a bit too much. It is what I said. Not my fault you do not listen.

BTW, you are missing the entire benefit with the fact that the US took NO action and the EU did.

We got our A/B test.

This is a rather silly discussion. I told you that they took no action with the browser.

You were challenging that but seem to finally have admitted the truth.

It gave us a great A/B test.

BTW, I am old and was around during this time in the tech industry.

In the EU they did take action that they did NOT in the US.

Apparently you have.

So we finally have agreement that the US did not require the choice on browser and in the EU they did. Perfect A/B test.

Good. That took a lot.

> Right... Bud, IDK exactly what issue is going on here but this statement is 100% not correct.

I am American and have installed Windows and can guarantee you that we do NOT get the screen asking about browser that you get in the EU. No action was taken in the US.

I have no idea why you are even challenging.

I actually prefer the invisible hand because actions often times cause an unexpected result.

But I do love this one because we get such a nice and clean A/B test.

Clearly the invisible hand (Market) is what really dictates things.

I think about it right now with Apple and Gogole default search. If that changed it would just be the vast majority still using Google.

People are going to go towards what works best in most cases and Google is just a lot better.

Edit: I should say that now I spend half my time in South East Asia and where I am now. But I have lived most of the time in the US since the EU took action with the browser being a choice when first start Windows and the US not taking the same action.

It is so simple.

In the US there were no action with the browser. They were allowed to continue to have IE the default browser. Nothing.

In the EU they were required to add a screen so you could choose your browser.

We now get to see the results of the A/B test.

In both cases Google won the browser wars and has basicallly the same market share in both areas.

Not complicated and we are so lucky to have such a nice and clean A/B test.

Clearly the action made NO difference!!

The market spoke and wanted Google for their browser.

Sigh...

In the US they were NOT required to have a screen when you first start Windows. In the EU there was.

We get to see the result with a fantastic A/B test.

It made no difference. Google won the browser both in the US and the EU. Basically have the same percent in both.

But there was NO browser choice law in the US. So we got a pretty good A/B test.

The end result is that Google had 60% and 61%. Basically no difference.

The law made no difference was my entire point.

I find that interesting. It is kind of rare we get such an A/B test to see.

You missed my entire point. It made ZERO difference.

Nothing in the US and Google has 61%. In the EU they did add the screen and 60%.

The market took care of things and Google won in both places. Google has 15x the market share that Microsoft has.

No but they have about 15x what Microsoft has today. Microsoft actually gave up on doing their own and now just use Google (Chromium).

There was no action against Microsoft in the states.

In the EU they were required to add a screen when first starting Windows on what browser you wanted.

Kind of funny to now look back and see the results.

In the US and the EU Google completely dominates with browsers and Microsoft gave up on their own and using Google for their browser.

Google has 60% in Europe and 61% in the United States.

Looks like it made no difference.

He should know. But boy it sure did not look like he grabbed much. This is coming from a KC fan.

Go listen to the podcast and Ian explains it all. Plus no Schmidhuber was NOT the inventor. It was Ian.

Go listen to the podcast and get back to me.

The key AI R&D from the last decade plus has all come from Google. Not from OpenAI and most definitely not from Microsoft.