Why did so many major players decide they needed a single umbrella GenAI “brand” that uses the same name to label a bunch of almost completely separate products?
Seems to me like Google made a conscious decision to try and be proactively diverse/inclusive which meant that they became horribly historically inaccurate - something that would have just worked if they hadn't messed with the model in the first place. If they had done 5 min of testing they would have picked up the issue and wouldn't have to un-launch something that they only launched a few days ago!
I expected Google to do better. The image generation thing is a Microsoft Tay level self own. I know it will be a better product possibly because of this, but it all could have been avoided if they did the kind of engineering we expect from Google.
Why did so many major players decide they needed a single umbrella GenAI “brand” that uses the same name to label a bunch of almost completely separate products?
Seems to me like Google made a conscious decision to try and be proactively diverse/inclusive which meant that they became horribly historically inaccurate - something that would have just worked if they hadn't messed with the model in the first place. If they had done 5 min of testing they would have picked up the issue and wouldn't have to un-launch something that they only launched a few days ago!
I expected Google to do better. The image generation thing is a Microsoft Tay level self own. I know it will be a better product possibly because of this, but it all could have been avoided if they did the kind of engineering we expect from Google.