In a strange way, the best thing that could have happened to Google (now masquerading as Alphabet, its parent company) was Facebook. Why? Because although Google invented surveillance capitalism, arguably the most toxic business model since the opium trade, it was Facebook that got into the most trouble for its abuses of it. The result was that Google enjoyed an easier ride. Naturally, it had the odd bit of unpleasantness with the EU, with annoying fines and long drawn-out legal wrangles. However, it was Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg — not Google’s Larry Page, Sergey Brin and their adult supervisor Eric Schmidt — who was awarded the title of evil emperor of the online world.
This sometimes enabled Google to fly below the regulatory radar and avoid public criticism. Its relative immunity might also have been fostered by credulity induced by its “Don’t be evil” motto. What might also have helped is the way that, over the years, it fumbled quite a few things — Google+, Google Wave, Google Glass, Knol and Google Reader, to name just five. On the other hand, it also managed to create useful and successful products — Gmail, for example, plus Google Maps, Google Scholar, Google Earth and Google Books. And, of course, it made inspired acquisitions of YouTube in 2006 and of artificial-intelligence start-up DeepMind in 2014.
What enabled the company to get away with that mixture of creativity, fumbling and indirection, obviously, was that it was always rolling in money. The mighty cash pump of its search engine and associated ad business has dependably provided revenues of US$100 billion-plus a year since 2017 for the enrichment of its shareholders. With that kind of income you can afford to make a lot of mistakes, especially when you own the search engine that has a near monopoly of the market in most parts of the non-communist world.
Illustration: Mountain People
It is not as though Google’s chief executive and his colleagues are going naked into battle.
So how come that this lucrative behemoth is suddenly at panic stations? Google CEO Sundar Pichai has issued a “code red” alert, whatever that means. It seems to involve recalling the firm’s two cofounders, who had happily been spending time with their vast fortunes, to help right the ship. It also involves sacking people on an industrial scale — 12,000 to date. The methods involved in the dismissals are not as brutal as those employed by Elon Musk at Twitter, but the scale is real enough. One executive said the first indication that something was up came when he could not access his Google Nest Hub smart home control.
“When I went to check my work e-mail, I was still in a waking state and couldn’t make sense of why I was getting so many e-mails asking if I was OK,” he wrote. “Scrolling further down, there was a form e-mail from PeopleOps indicating, as you may have surmised by now, that my employment at Google has been terminated.”
Why the panic? Three reasons, in ascending order of urgency. The first is that the tech industry knows there is a downturn coming and that it massively overrecruited in 2021 and last year. To date, the main companies have fired about 200,000 employees. Second, the US Department of Justice and eight states have filed a lawsuit against Google alleging that it illegally monopolized the online ad market through, according to the Politico Web site, a “years-long practice of self-dealing, anticompetitive acquisitions and forcing businesses to use multiple products and services that it offers”.
However, the real reason for panic seems to be the OpenAI company’s prototype artificial-intelligence chatbot ChatGPT, the free version of which is taking the world by storm. This is worrying enough for Google, given that people are already using it as a kind of search engine. But maybe what is alarming Pichai and company is that OpenAI is testing the market for a “pro” version costing US$42 a month, and providing faster responses and other goodies. Moreover, it is heavily backed by Microsoft.
Given that Google (and therefore Alphabet) is critically dependent on the continuing prosperity of Google Search, anything that might undermine it will look like an existential threat. Moreover, in the tech industry, former Intel CEO Andy Grove’s mantra — that “only the paranoid survive” — is conventional wisdom. But even so, it is hard to see why Pichai and his colleagues are so worried. After all, it is not as though they are going naked into battle. Google has its own version of a ChatGPT-like system — language model for dialogue applications, or LaMDA — which, famously, an engineer found so compelling that he started to believe it might be sentient (and was later fired for going public with his views).
Given all this, why is Google not launching LaMDA? Is it because the company feels that it is not yet ready for wide deployment? Maybe it is still being vetted, as ChatGPT is, for its ability to generate toxic content? Or is it because, in the light of the latest antitrust suit, the company is worried about the regulators? Who knows? It is almost enough to make one want to ask ChatGPT: “Why is Google not releasing a chatbot like you?”
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
RSS