https://www.reuters.com/business/google-shakes-up-ai-leaders...
Clayton Christensen [1] says (paraphrasing) it's a good idea to spin-off (or invest) in a startup that you've a say on, before the ecosystem sprouts a seemingly-non-entity and gently disrupts your market.
Interestingly (diff strategies i guess) Apple tends to acquire (Q.ai) rather than invest/venture (as google in OP).
[1] The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail.
Looks like Gemini's sub-par performance is claiming heads
Even in indirect ways. OpenAI itself was founded because Musk got fixated on "stopping" Hassabis.
Don’t understand how Sundar is still running things, though.
The next chapter of our AI momentum
First, it is incredibly difficult to pivot a large organization because there are too many competing interests, too many fiefdoms people have built and too much organizational inertia. A new company has the advantage of a singularity of purpose. Google has to compete with internal interests about AI disrupting search, ad revenue and so on. This can slow you down and limit the resources you get. It's why companies get disrupted, particularly when they reach monopoly status. Steve jobs said it best [1].
Second, Gogole's path here (IMHO) is to make their own hardware. They've already done this with their TPUs but need to be able to compete with NVidia offerings. NVidia controlling the price, features and, most importantly, who gets to buy them is bad for Google. This is what Google should be pouring billions into.
The beauty of this is that success is easily measurable against metrics like price-per-petaflops, performance-per-Watt and so on. Throw money at some key Nvidia engineers and have them design silicon for you for TSMC to fab.
I still believe that Google is positioned to survive the (IMHO) inevitable AI bubble popping.
> Announcing Discovery Loop!
> I am very excited to announce that, along with my longtime friends and collaborators @Sanjay_Ghemawat, @OriolVinyalsML and @quocleix, we are founding Discovery Loop (@DiscoLoopAI), a Public Benefit Corporation whose mission is to automate machine learning, science, and engineering to accelerate discoveries and progress. The four of us have worked together for 14 to 30 years, and have helped build some of the world’s most used products, infrastructure and AI models, and we’re excited to turn our attention to this ambitious endeavor.
OpenAI and Anthropic went from tiny startups to huge companies. As a consequence the stock options/RSU's offered to the employees paid off a far higher percentage ROI than any stock options a DeepMind (and thus Google) employee would get (since Google is already huge). This disincentivizes people who truly believe in the economically transformative power of AI to work at Google since their benefits will be capped by Google being large + having public company obligations.
https://x.com/sundarpichai/status/2085033425736745093
So it's not stepping down, right?
The bigger deal is the departure of Jeff and Sanjay, rather than Demis moving into a different role.
And all the prominent names Google gained: NULL
Combined with no gemini frontier GA release in about 14 months. You have to have created an environment pretty hostile to innovation for this to happen
Seems like a good way to spend investor dollars without consequences while maintaining control. Maybe a bit cynical but i can't figure out why they'd form a PBC over anything else.
1) the simplest explanation whenever a bunch of people leave [x] at a company at the same time, is that [x] is becoming less important to that company moving forward. It's not proof, but you know, everyone is trying really hard to say that's not what's happening here. Sometimes the simplest explanation is correct.
2) rumor is that Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, got bored during pandemic lockdown and eventually returned to Google in a lower profile role, related to AI. I have to think that he still has a lot of say in what goes on in Google relative to his interests.
3) Yahoo Finance article says Hassabis "has long prioritized research over profits", so his replacement might indicate that Google has decided it is time for this stuff to pay for itself?
But missing out right as AI coding agents become genuinely deeply capable and useful is just an immense failure.
Kinsley Gaffe: A mistake whereby a politician inadvertently says something truthful which they had not meant to reveal.
I do wonder if anybody working at Google can give us an insight why the chaos and lack of competitiveness?
They getting a higher ROI renting their TPUs to Anthropic et al instead of performing training and serving their own models. Google cloud has insane backlog, and has rapidly expanded to satisfy it. While those DCs get built, they’re cannibalizing their own products for it.
This makes sense because (1) they are investors in Anthropic, so they still win and (2) they can always catch up on model training later when the profit opportunity shifts, or abandon it if there is no way to recapture that value.
I am sure VCs are fighting to invest and they will get 4B investment immediately with this team
It's a huge company.
It's unlikely there is any one person to blame (and entirely possible he has none of it). But things need to change.
In most cases, it doesn't really matter. The board + management is still in charge, and they have significant legal leeway regardless of the structure. But there's little additional cost to opt for a PBC, and it does give you more legal defensibility to be truly mission driven. Standard C Corps weren't really intended for mission driven companies (see the shareholder primacy norm).
I think it's popular for AI startups, because many great researchers understand the risks involved, and they don't want what they build to be controlled solely for shareholder benefit.
While non-profits are also an option for a mission driven org, it's harder to raise the large amounts of cash that some AI startups need, and laws around deferred compensation and private inurement (e.g. options-like structures) make employee compensation harder.
There is another universe where Google is hard AGI forward, freeing up as much compute as possible for Deepmind, turning away OAI and Anthropic, and offering the uncontested premier AI research lab, by probably an order of magnitude or more compute. Gemini 3.5 ultra is limited availability with unreal abilities.
But their balance sheet becomes terrifying, and it's all or nothing that this plays, er pays, out.
Right now though Google is pretty well hedged. Even Chinese models likely just mean more compute sold.
People who truly care about becoming rich*
DeepMind made enormous transformative discoveries, for instance in the world of protein folding. But that will just save human lives, not let CEOs fire their people to grab a larger piece of cake for themselves.
It's funny, because I think the company that's going to be best positioned coming out of this bubble is in fact google, because they have the expertise and the capital. But I honestly can't tell you right now what their AI product even is -- I've seen so many things go into the graveyard a few months after its launched that I'm utterly confused what their offering even is at this point.
Edit: hmm, no, they seem to be mentioning AGI and frontier models in https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/n...
To me the biggest news is Jeff and Sanjay leaving Google... but then not really, since Google will be "an investor". I guess that's sorta their retirement plan? And is Discovery Loop actually part of Alphabet? So complicated.
Anyway, the actual theory is that Google and Meta have fallen behind because they've been playing by this playbook of focusing on scale and training data, whereas OpenAI and Anthropic have done so well because they are likely doing much more interesting things to improve their models over time. It makes sense when you realize that one of Google's key strengths, besides talent, is that they have an incredible amount of data they can use for training due to being both the world's leading search engine as well as having all that video data from YouTube. Scaling the training data makes more sense to them than it does to Anthropic and OpenAI, who are both relatively data-disadvantaged.
You can kind of see this when you look at the Gemini 3 scorecard when it came out (https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/gemini/g...) and notice that while it wasn't as good as Claude And GPT at coding, it scored higher on a bunch of other non-coding benchmarks, and I think the reason why is simply because of Google's data advantage.
If true, I feel even more vindicated for believing that the "scale is all we need" narrative was bullshit.
This over-reaction is why people can't see over a long time horizon.
This is great news for Google as they realize that Sundar is the problem and he will soon leave Google for Demis to be the new CEO of Alphabet (Google) which I am predicting. [0]
So yes fancy title, but basically, someone who can move the stock price is quitting and we're trying to ease the perception of it.
It's not really clear what their gameplan is. From the outside, it looks like they're asleep at the wheel. Qwen/Deepseek/Kimi are crushing them from the cheap-and-open side, and they're not remotely competitive with Mythos/Sol or even plain-vanilla Opus on the "premium" tier.
Gemini does actually have its uses, but they're very very marginal and niche.
From day one everybody was saying that Google would eventually capture the AI market, but it looks more remote than ever. Maybe Hassabis' personal inclination towards AI-for-science, and physics/chemistry in particular -- as opposed to consumer AI and coding AI -- has hurt them commercially.
And most likely this is a calculated step to avoid freaking people out, even though he is effectively leaving.
When Eric Schmidt became chairman or Ruth Porat became president, this was more a transition towards less involvement than an increase of impact.
This is probably the only time some prominent VCs would be active during August, only for Jeff Dean & Co's company.
I can see them now frantically negotiating, responding and firing off emails right now during their holidays to get an allocation in Jeff's new company.
ahahah golden.
Will be following their journey
Very few companies have leadership that can prevent this infighting and force teams on directed goals.
Demis tried to be google ceo by pumping out self aggrandizing 'documentaries' and highfalutin interviews where said a whole bunch of nothing.
Then the Google engineers who joined Facebook missed it so much that they built a better replacement.
this is false, it's very good at internal tooling.
for all these reasons, is being 6 months behind the frontier actually a structural, long term disadvantage? some day the pace of improvement will slow, and google will vacuum up the market. they'll be able to compete with open-weight models just on pure cost advantage from their vertical integration
- In a world where open source Chinese models decimate Frontier models ability to charge a high price, it's the operators of efficient inference data centers that will win. Like Google
- Google is probably the biggest provider of "free" AI because it's on Google.com. That forces them to focus on cost. And in a commodity market, low-cost providers are the ones that make the money.
10 years from now, its gonna be Google, Apple and Microsoft left standing in the AI game. Well, until the US wakes up and starts attempting to break the oligopoly like the EU has recently started to do.
There's an old saying, if you judge a fish's smarts by how well it can ride a bicycle, it will always seem dumb.
The people who have risen to the top of at Google are built for a different environment than what's needed right now. They are good at playing their political games, sabotaging each other, etc.; i.e. all of the petty games that managers play in big companies. But the AI era demands a different skill set: how to bring together incredibly smart people and forge them into a battle group that will achieve victory in the ongoing battle for AGI! It's as if you have built an army of tanks, but the next battle is being fought on the high seas.
my take on this is eventually the money is going to run out and there's going to be acquisitions and consolidation. I think that's when Google will come out on top.
Google spending money on competing head to head with your LLMs is a waste of money for Google. If anthropic wins, Google copies their approach, buys anthropic for cheap or both. All the investors throwing money into OpenAI, Anthropic, are just accidentally subsidizing Google's product development. Google shouldn't spend its AI research capital in an arms race with Anthropic but instead should invest in AI approaches that no one else is investigating at scale. That way Google can hedge against LLMs hitting a wall.
There is a real but small danger to Google that Anthropic replaces Google as a search engine, but that is an uphill fight for Anthropic. Google has massive brand recognition, network effects with gmail and chrome, Anthropic can't just copy what works from Google. On the other hand Google can copy what works for Anthropic. Google would have to play poorly to lose that fight.
Probably the worse case for Google is that software becomes so cheap and easy to create and maintain that all of Google's product offerings become commoditized. Even in that world Google has a lock on infrastructure. Perhaps ASI software creation completely removes that as well? If so we are living in a post-singularity world and probably the stockmarket doesn't exist anymore either.
Uh oh...
Yes it's a huge company.
So they are slower. Then they will surface it across their massive product base and keep generating cash. While having a hand in Anthropic and others via investment anyway.
Google doesn't need to offer you the bleeding edge at startup pace. They're playing a different game. When the bubble pops they will be well positioned really no matter the outcome to continue to capitalize as their competitors implode or get absorbed.
The idea a delay is a "complete and unmitigated disaster" is just laughable. People have been saying this about Google since ChatGPT first invaded the public consciousness. Google will continue to do well, the histrionics of people like you aside.
Not all change is good, as proven by Zuckerberg's response after the lackluster Llama 4 release. The radical restructuring appears to have made things worse.
Perhaps an unpopular opinion: Google would greatly benefit from this AI bubble to pop and take down OpenAI and Anthropic.
For agentic work, but especially for web search, 3.6 Flash has an important leg up, its fast speed, that no other model comes close to matching. I guess nobody pays attention to it because it's not the one big flashy number that you compare to other models.
Which is: When you think about Google, true, old, "don't be evil", tech excellence Google, you don't think about Demis. You think about Jeff's and Sanjay's geeky, technically uncompromising, faces.
Google has multiple cash firehouses, the small AI companies do not.
No one joins OpenAI/Anthropic unless they think these companies will reach superintelligence.
So most people joining believe their equity will 10-100x even from where it is today.
(Coincidentally, the talent that believes we will reach AGI overlaps a lot with the best talent, which has a magnetic effect.)
So I think they have to prioritize scaling for their models to a higher degree than other groups. Being within say 5% or so in most cases is probably adequate and matters more overall for their user base than being the absolute best coder. So they may be setting compute constraints for training or inference that are firmer than other teams.
[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/05/31/google-ai-...
[2] - https://www.axios.com/2024/02/23/google-gemini-images-stereo...
I’ve been reading this sentiment on HN since GPT4o, yet models got better and better
They could really use some encouraging news about the competitiveness of their AI lab.
This means Demis wanted a change and to work on other things, it's not Google wanting this.
Something was definitely going down internally.
Right now AI companies are competing to make LLMs better at graduate-school level tasks. They all can already competently tell you what the weather is going to be like tomorrow or when the first Led Zeppelin album was released.
Google buys Anthropic for cheap? How?
At some point we have to all accept that powerful AI is most likely dangerous AI as well, almost by definition.
[1] also known for open-sourcing ProtoBufs v2, creating CapnProto and Sandstorm, and commenting on the recent Cloudflare OS post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49182996
There are PetaBytes of important scientific data locked in archival file formats. The first step is to make this efficiently readable.
They need to route all browser search strings to an LLM, and slowly begin to charge where people will pay. Likely ad space.
No, the top talent is clearly at Anthropic and OpenAI
A chief scientist can be super influential, or a guy who’s on the slow path to retirement but is keeping a paycheck to keep up appearances.
It's still the typical title as a stepping stone towards something else (often outside).
Start in a blank directory and tell it to spin up a boq Scaffolding stubby server that responds with "hello world." Unless something has changed in the past few months, it won't know how to do that locally, let alone actually deploy it. If it even knows what boq is, it's because it did a moma search on the fly.
A massive shake up for sure, but why do you see it as separate events merely timed to coincide ?
Big shake up for Gemini it seems.
I've noticed that Gemini has been timing out yesterday & today !
Edit: sibling story in front page links to this which explains better in its lede text than what I just wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/05/technology/google-researc...
To me it looks like he’ll be in a position to actually be unhobble DeepMind - reminder DM was sitting on a ChatGPT product for a whole year before ChatGPT got released (LMChat) and Google didn’t let them release it.
Hassabis seems to have been pushed aside. He had been CEO of DeepMind, but that position no longer exists and it seems Kavukcuoglu is now leading DeepMind with a title of SVP. Hassabis is now just "Chair" of DeepMind, and has been given the newly created title of Alphabet Chief Scientist. Are these just face-saving titles, or does he still have any real influence over Google/DeepMind's pursuit of AGI?
Shane Legg remains as DeepMind "Chief AGI Scientist", but I wonder if the DeepMind founding mission of creating AGI is really intact, or if he will be next to go. Has DeepMind just become the Gemini division?
I just found out that David Silver, DeepMind's RL-expert, already left in february, to create a startup "Ineffible Intelligence" focusing on RL-based continual learning.
EDIT: "figurehead" - that's all I meant. A notable, public figure from the company who is credited with having a significant impact on its evolution. I'm not making a judgement call on his departure, or Ive's, being good or bad.
That said... just give it a couple years, they'll be back in a lucrative aquihire.
Also lots of tech people, HN included, are waking up to technology not only including penicillin (net positive for humanity) but also dynamite (best case: net neutral).
This is in addition to bumping their CapEx spend to the extent their cash flow turned negative for the first time ever this quarter: https://arstechnica.com/google/2026/07/google-just-had-its-f...
The world doesn’t realize how desperately compute-crunched hyperscalers are to meet AI demand.
This is a better problem to have than SpaceX, which is renting out capacity obviously because it’s own AI products aren’t selling.
But Jeff was responsible for a lot more of what is actually used today than Demis.
Demis is responsible for a lot more of the hype though ;)
I think saying Jeff's contributions were a long time ago must represent some kind of lack of understanding of Jeff's recent contributions.
Jeff has still been focused more on infrastructure, and that is just more hidden most of the time.
I would say,if i was forced to pick someone whose vision to follow, it would definitely be Jeff and not Demis, even today.
Demis Hassabis is leaving his role as CEO of Google DeepMind to be the unit's chairman. Chief scientist Jeff Dean and several Google AI colleagues are leaving to start their own company, which Google will invest in.
Why it matters: Google's AI organization is undergoing a profound change as the company struggles to keep pace with OpenAI and Anthropic.
The big picture: The moves are the latest in a series of departures and shifts at Google as frontier AI models have been advancing rapidly in recent months.
Driving the news: Hassabis will add the title of chief scientist for Google parent company Alphabet and also continue to lead Isomorphic Labs, the company's AI drug discovery spinoff.
Follow the money: Google's stock fell over 4% on the news.
What they're saying: Google aimed to put a positive spin on the exits and shifts, with Hassabis, Pichai and Kavukcuoglu all sharing upbeat memos.
Hassabis: "I've been working towards AGI my whole life and now, like many of you, I feel it is close at hand," Hassabis wrote. "It's critical that we collectively get the next steps right to ensure this all goes well for humanity and we usher in an incredible new age of discovery and wonder."
**Pichai: "**We've got amazing talent, world-class compute, and products that bring AI to more people than any other company."
Kavukcuoglu: "For Google DeepMind, our mission to build AI responsibly to benefit humanity does not change. My primary focus is ensuring we have the clearest possible path to delivering on our ambitious Gemini roadmap as we progress toward AGI. In today's rapidly evolving landscape, we must operate with absolute intention and velocity."
Zoom in: The role positions Hassabis to focus more keenly on the scientific aspects of AI development.
Zoom out: In an interview with The New York Times, Dean indicated that leaving Google, a public company, gives him more leeway to focus on scientific discoveries associated with AI as well.
What we're watching: The change comes after a groundswell of pushback from Google DeepMind employees and several high profile talent exits.
This story has been updated with details throughout.
That can work in the B2C space but it's horrible in B2B.
They may not capture enterprise use, but I don't think they have to. That's only one piece of the market. AI that's useful to consumers will still get delivered via a smartphone, and Google is in a great place to capture that.
I also don't think LLMs have to be a "winner takes all" situation. Value isn't going to come from having direct access to a chatbot or selling API inference, value is going to be in the form of a specific product (for most, devs aside here). Something a consumer, or a non-tech business can buy off the shelf and plug and play. A "ready made" customer service agent system, a "ready made" BI platform using AI, etc.
For consumers, that's probably going to look like whatever is bundled and tightly integrated into their mobile OS of choice.
Yeah, this is one of the things I find so weird on the discourse. If you get there negligeably later, but without astonishing spend and waste, you might even be better off in the long term.
The group running the company, is the company.
They are quietly trying to become the chatbot that everyone uses to look things up. That strikes me as an intelligent move - not everything has to be done by an expensive frontier model.
They already have good models, so “better” isn’t as profitable.
He won’t have any authority in the company other than leading and voting in board meetings.
“Heavily” it’s a high bar at their scale. They spent over $10bn playing with cars.
OpenAI did but they had a totally different structure and were never a PBC.
If these guys adopt a similar LTBT+PBC structure to Anthropic it should be more resilient.
Whether this happened because they bet on "world models -> better reasoning" and that bet didn't pay off, or failed a frontier run for technical reasons like OpenAI did with 4.5, or something else went down? We don't know.
Will they bleed talent, fall further behind until they give up, or clean the organizational and infrastructural cobwebs and get back in the saddle? We don't know.
Heard this multiple time, to me this is pure history rewriting and post-rationalization. OpenAI also had a internal chat app before chatgpt, Microsoft had multiple, a bunch of other players also had internal chatgpt equivalents + many startups built some using OAI API.
The breakthrough of ChatGPT wasnt because OAI were the first to think of that (absolutely obvious and basic) product, it was because they were the first to get a model strong enough to be actually useful to talk to, vs a mere fun novelty.
There is no evidence whatsoever that DM ever had such a model that they decide not to talk about/release.
I think LessWrong is a much better community for rational takes on AI, they've been reasoning about these risks for years under a much more sound logical framework
My case is based on the assumption that Anthropic will not hit RSI or if it does RSI rapidly hits a wall. Faster your growth curve, the faster you eat all the low hanging fruit and s-curve. I could be wrong here, maybe RSI will cause a hard takeoff singularity by 2030 and just keep going, but if that happens the world fundamentally changes.
I think the question is whether that's even relevant.
If AI becomes a commodity (will it?) you're better off being Google than OpenAI.
Microsoft struggled to keep up with the mobile industry frontier and here they are, healthier than ever.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-ai-chatbot-threatening-m...
Yeah he seemed too reasonable to me, relative to the fervor. Whoever ends up in charge needs to do a lot of frothing to catch up to the ferver that would justify their valuations and investments
To its credit Google seems willing to disrupt itself before its competitors can.
Everyone else was scared to unleashed it on the general public because it was too powerful with too many unknowns (in ~2022, hindsight is different)
Altman didn't give a fuck, first mover was more important to him.
model training and inference is the opposite. people switch LLMs like people change clothes in the morning. there are popular services (openrouter) that make moving as easy as changing a model string.
[1] https://www.synbiobeta.com/read/anthropic-is-hiring-biologis...
I don’t think this reflects desperation as much as strategy.
Are you sure we should compare it like this? Not sure it implies what you think it does...
Even though my PhD research was in generative language modeling, I got into it for the pursuit of AGI. I just think LLMs are a dead end for AGI.
Did he say a "complete and unmitigated disaster"?
No, because he's not a fool. If he had said that the correct response would have been to question his sanity.
When you have a lot of free users the business demands that you serve them with the best cheap model you can build
And time spent building that may provide dividends (eg OpenAI has very good RL and reasoning) but it might take resources away from the larger model training
(I have no inside knowledge, so please consider this to all be speculation)
LLMs will obviously keep getting incrementally better, but in order to get the kind on jump that LLMs themselves were, the sentiment is that we need something more.
This was the core hypothesis.
Anyone remember the touchpad MBP with no physical escape key and the butterfly keyboard?
(Respect to many of Ive’s great legacy though)
The position that I have rather often read on the internet is: Jonathan Ive did very good work at Apple as long as there was a counterpart who could steer his creative vision. This counterpart was of course Steve Jobs. When Steve Jobs died, there wasn't such a counterpart anymore, so Ive's work for Apple got much worse.
Real scientists are skeptical. Wall St and the people who serve it don’t like that.
Who knows? Pure speculation? You can also say if Jobs was still around they could have 10x-ed it even further?
Apple car could have been a thing? Apple could have been way ahead and actually competing in AI and data centers? Who knows what else Jobs could have came up with?
[1] https://www.mindstudio.ai/blog/sundar-pichai-google-compute-...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/21/google-must-double-ai-servin...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-22/google-sa...
[4] https://arstechnica.com/google/2026/07/google-just-had-its-f...
[5] https://thenextweb.com/news/google-caps-meta-gemini-compute-...
Sounds like the oil scare from 90' - we thought we were gonna run out of oil. But as oil gets more expensive it pays to dig further down to find the stuff that didn't make sense to dig up before.
So the parent comment would imply that losing Dean is a good thing for Google, which is way less likely here.