brainwad

That filter does much more, it removes all the "first party" results, AI or otherwise. You are better off with adding "-ai" tot be query.

Not really? In the US it kept being bundled by default, they just made it possible to disable the front end (the MSHTML rednerig engine was unremovable).

There are LLM outputs all over the page, not just at the top.

All computation offloads cognitive functions. That's what they are for. You could also read a bunch of index cards and decide for yourself which results to shortlist when doing research, instead of using a search engine.

Possibly they want to evolve the feature to be _not_ bolted on.

Then they will get the AI features the school wants blocked.

They don't care, they think traditional search is already dead.

They do charge for Gemini, if you want pro models.

MSFT isn't laying off 60k people. It's offering voluntary severance, which will have a sub-10% take-up (for reference at GOOG it was low single digits).

The depreciation on a sufficiently powerful local machine costs more than the subscription to cloud frontier AI.

We did, ten years ago. With open mics! Now TGIF is every other month and the questions are bowdlerised by an LLM first.

Just reproduce it? Copy the weights. What I think you want is the ability to improve it, to make what in copyright would be called a derivative work.

Weird, maybe it's specific to your launcher? My searches from the -1 page of the launcher don't appear in Gemini, and the ones from the bottom corner swipe to search or OK Google don't appear in AI mode.

> First thing there that got me was that all of my Google searches. Why? I googled "snoop dog real name". Why is this considered a gemini chat now?

It isn't - it's probably an _assistant_ query? In fact the Gemini and Search orgs are cartoonishly at loggerheads; both developing more or less the same product (http://gemini.google.com vs http://google.ai).

Alphabetically sorting chemical elements sounds like something _only_ a marketing department could think of.

TBH they are smart enough for me; I want more speed and more initiative (e.g. my Opus one shot should not have terrible perf that it can itself fix with a simple prompt "it's OOMing, fix it"; it should proactively write the performant code).

But if they keep releasing a model every month, then the frontier model will keep being perpetually half price?

It was locked down to GDM only for several months, but now it's available for everyone.

Not just AI shops. All large organisations, software or otherwise...

Yes: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c607l0k72rlvo

How do you do fellow frontier models? </meme>

They'll never get there since there's no J at all ;)

AIUI our Claude traffic runs on GCP and so never "leaves the building".

People I work with either use the dogfood versions of our models, the latest public versions thereof, or Opus 5.5. It's a personal preference thing, we have public usage dashboards and you can see some people are 100% Gemini, some are 100% Claude, some are using both.

It's also dog slow at AA index tasks compared to other models in its class. Makes me think they optimised for getting on the intelligence/cost frontier at the cost of real world usability.

They'd just rescind it. They aren't usually set up as binding contracts where the employee signs on the dotted line and it's immediately binding. It's more like an expression of interests which then leads to an exit contract if the company wants.

Interesting, but this is not the dominant ideology either at exec level or at employee level. From what I can tell it's more immortal humans owning their own fractions of the light cone.

At Google it was really rare to be denied, and if they did then it was kinda a negotiating chip for you - if you're so important to the company they won't let you leave, then are they going to pay you accordingly?

Eh, the voluntary severance offered at Google in various European countries recently was less than the negotiated payout for mandatory layoffs. And most of the headcount from people who took it was backfilled, too.

As I pointed out, even if they were totally self-interested they would not want human agency replaced with AI agency, because they are humans.

AIUI, M&A lawyering is _mostly_ formulaic. They copy a term sheet from a previous deal, replace with new names and figures, and then negotiate from that starting point. Only rarely will someone actually innovate and come up with some clause that's brand new. The core of it really is talking to the other party's lawyers, then updating docs to reflect your discussions.