The article makes the painfully obvious mistake of conflating Google’s interpretation of value with a private investor’s.<p>I am absolutely sure there is hesitancy at Google of overturning their search model (I.e. money printing machine) which led to the loss of the scientists. But let’s wait until they actually turn some semblance of a profit before claiming Google “lost” $4 billion.
Google apologists love telling us how Google invented the damn transformers. But everyone on the original team have their own startups, and most left long ago. Can Google still brag about having the best people or innovation environment?
This paper is probably underappreciated for its future influence in neuroscience cognitive science and philosophy of intelligence. I 'd bet on it as candidate for the most important in the century ahead , because of so many questions it opened
Llion Jones’ startup was unveiled a few days ago.<p><a href="https://twitter.com/SakanaAILabs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://twitter.com/SakanaAILabs</a>
To be perfectly honest, I have remained convinced that AI technology is, for the time being, mostly a fad technology with far less real-world value and practical usability than most people think.
4 billion is an astronomically high valuation, IMO.
I honestly don't think there is a shortage of talent out there and don't think any of these people are unique irreplaceable visionaries.
I think the bottleneck for successful teams is mostly funding and fit (you need big teams to get anything accomplished and they need to work well together).