That's only your perception of groupthink. You read those threats looking for anti-Google bias, and you find it, because of course.
AI is a very divisive subject nowadays. There are people that are all in on the hype, there are skeptics, there are desperate people thinking that they will lose their jobs, there are those that think is is destructive and unethical.
The only caveat that I might make is that at the time of the Microsoft announcement, it was during the honeymoon phase of OpenAI (when GPT 3 was fairly new and an impressive leap from what came before), and Google's current advancements, while impressive, come at a time when a lot more people are negative towards it.
Also, every sufficiently large company will have people that dislike it as a baseline. Be it Google, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Tesla, Toyota or any other. Read any thread on those companies and you will find negative comments based on that alone.
> That's only your perception of groupthink. You read those threats looking for anti-Google bias, and you find it, because of course.
Or... maybe it's only your perception. You're engaged in groupthink and read headlines looking for Google crimes[1], and you find them, because of course. I mean, I'm the one citing evidence (literally the headline we're discussing). Your theory that we're actually seeing a general change in attitudes toward AI in the HN commenter community seems interesting! But... unsupported.
Occam says you're just engaged in apologia for the echo chamber, sorry.
[1] I mean, come on. "Burying the web alive" really seems like reasoned discourse to you? A real rationalist would enter this discussion with a prior that the ridiculous hyperbole is probably wrong, not "let's find ways to make the ridiculous hyperbole more reasonable".
> I mean, come on. "Burying the web alive" really seems like reasoned discourse to you?
No, I actually disagree with the rationale. If anything, AI makes it easier to find some quick answers, since Google's top results tend to be shit.
I am very ambivalent towards the current AI hype. I think that the capabilities of LLMs are vastly overrated, even if they are useful to an extent.
That said, this it not to say that I don't think Google was very damaging to the web in many ways, mainly with how it made search so much worse over the years.
> A real rationalist would enter this discussion with a prior that the ridiculous hyperbole is probably wrong
Eh, I can understand that with the more pronounced negativity towards AI nowadays, this sort of rant will become more common. Every thread on AI nowadays has this overall vibe (not without reason).
> Occam says you're just engaged in apologia for the echo chamber, sorry.
Eh, I actually don't think very highly of HN. Plenty of terrible takes on every thread.
This is just a glorified Reddit full of people who really like the smell of their own farts. Why would I defend it?
That's only your perception of groupthink. You read those threats looking for anti-Google bias, and you find it, because of course.
AI is a very divisive subject nowadays. There are people that are all in on the hype, there are skeptics, there are desperate people thinking that they will lose their jobs, there are those that think is is destructive and unethical.
The only caveat that I might make is that at the time of the Microsoft announcement, it was during the honeymoon phase of OpenAI (when GPT 3 was fairly new and an impressive leap from what came before), and Google's current advancements, while impressive, come at a time when a lot more people are negative towards it.
Also, every sufficiently large company will have people that dislike it as a baseline. Be it Google, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Tesla, Toyota or any other. Read any thread on those companies and you will find negative comments based on that alone.