News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by ShamelessC on Sunday July 16, 2023 @01:35PM (#36749547)
> public api's and/or user interfaces

sigh. Google used to release _some_ models. Guess the fun early days are coming to an end.

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by og_kalu on Sunday July 16, 2023 @01:41PM (#36749618)
Ha i'm not even asking for code/model releases. It's just a bit funny that what you can *pay* google to use is so far behind what they have up and running collecting dust.
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by ShamelessC on Sunday July 16, 2023 @01:48PM (#36749702)
Also true.
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by Raed667 on Sunday July 16, 2023 @03:50PM (#36750776)
I'm speculating here, but for me it looks like the product (R&D) teams are not working closely with the research teams.

Even the demo website is on Github Pages instead of a Google domain/blog.

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by Legend2440 on Sunday July 16, 2023 @01:37PM (#36749571)
Google is a business and this is clearly a valuable product.
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by ShamelessC on Sunday July 16, 2023 @01:47PM (#36749689)
Sure, but there was a time not too long ago when companies were still in the "good will" phase of handing out even highly valuable models like CLIP, guided-diffusion, etc. Come to think, it was mostly OpenAI doing this. And they kinda still do? But far more selectively. I'm just preemptively romanticizing that.
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by rasz on Sunday July 16, 2023 @01:51PM (#36749724)
Product is something you sell to make money. The only real Google product is users sold to advertisers.
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by vore on Sunday July 16, 2023 @02:56PM (#36750298)
Uh, what about all of their paid cloud offerings?
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by rasz on Sunday July 16, 2023 @03:17PM (#36750482)
Distraction. Generated whole 1% of overall profit last quarter, and that was the first time it didnt lose money. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/25/googles-cloud-business-turns...
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by jsnell on Sunday July 16, 2023 @02:59PM (#36750329)
Google's non-advertising revenue in the latest quarter was about $15 billion. Is that significant amount of non-ads product revenue? At least that is higher than the revenue of any of IBM, HP, Oracle, Intel, Cisco, Netflix, Broadcom, Qualcomm, or Salesforce in that same quarter.

I think their non-ads businesses alone would be the 6th largest US tech company by revenue. (Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, the ads business of Alphabet, Meta. Am I forgetting something?)

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by rasz on Sunday July 16, 2023 @03:27PM (#36750565)
Revenue is easy when you lose money on every dollar. Last quarter Ads printed $21B of income, rest was a loss except cloud not losing hundreds of $millions for the very first time.

https://abc.xyz/assets/investor/static/pdf/2023Q1_alphabet_e...

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by joezydeco on Sunday July 16, 2023 @02:23PM (#36750023)
The Graveyard is full of viable products.

https://killedbygoogle.com/

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by vore on Sunday July 16, 2023 @02:59PM (#36750325)
I don’t want to defend Google’s business practices, but this is such a trite comment someone always feels compelled to post on anything about Google, including even a research paper, apparently.
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by joezydeco on Sunday July 16, 2023 @03:37PM (#36750648)
I'll argue it's not trite. It's a concise compilation of the thousands of teeth-gnashing comments here on HN and all over the internet whenever Google randomly drowns another one of its children.

Just fucking stay away from Google products. Period.

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by relativ575 on Sunday July 16, 2023 @04:09PM (#36750934)
First of all it isn't a product. It's a f*king research paper. Like dozens other showing up on HN every day. Most of them never becomes a product.

Second of all, by whining nauseously you drown out discussions on the merits of the technology, and chase people away. I hardly read Google news on HN now precisely because of that reason. Imagine if "Attention is all your need" came out now? [0]

Save your complaint for when Google makes it a product.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938082

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by serf on Sunday July 16, 2023 @05:00PM (#36751351)
>Save your complaint for when Google makes it a product.

or save yourself the trouble and find alternatives to big-G.

It's entirely their own fault that people now view all Google news as temporary and fleeting. People don't want to put time into things that'll get thrown away in a year.

Reading G research papers seems like a shortcut to me, know what will be thrown away in 2 years before it's a valid product in 1 year and someone gets huckleberry'd into devoting time and effort into implementing the dead-product-walking API.

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by signatoremo on Sunday July 16, 2023 @05:40PM (#36751666)
> It's entirely their own fault that people now view all Google news as temporary and fleeting. People don't want to put time into things that'll get thrown away in a year.

Most of research don’t become their own products, from Google or anyone else. As a research project they still have values, unless you are saying Google research is garbage because they get into the habit of canceling their products.

> or save yourself the trouble and find alternatives to big-G

Totally valid point. No need to complain about it in a post about Google research though. It’s tiresome.

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by joezydeco on Sunday July 16, 2023 @09:29PM (#36753102)
unless you are saying Google research is garbage because they get into the habit of canceling their products.

Bravo! Now you're getting it!

(actually it's worse than garbage because they'll lock it all behind patents before abandoning any finished product)

Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by georgemcbay on Sunday July 16, 2023 @03:22PM (#36750518)
I don't bother to post the comment, but the high likelihood of any Google project/product being killed within a year or two is absolutely the first thought I have whenever a new Google project/product is announced (not because of HN posts, but because of their history), so good job on that Google.
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by glimshe on Sunday July 16, 2023 @04:45PM (#36751235)
It's a very relevant comment. It tells you to not rely, or expect further development, on any new Google technology, even seemingly good ones, as it can go to the graveyard like many others.
Re:Google SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation by ShamelessC on Sunday July 16, 2023 @08:08PM (#36752671)
How in gods name is this a controversial take? Good lord.