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?”
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
“Can you tell me where the time and motivation will come from to get students to improve their English proficiency in four years of university?” The teacher’s question — not accusatory, just slightly exasperated — was directed at the panelists at the end of a recent conference on English language learning at Taiwanese universities. Perhaps thankfully for the professors on stage, her question was too big for the five minutes remaining. However, it hung over the venue like an ominous cloud on an otherwise sunny-skies day of research into English as a medium of instruction and the government’s Bilingual Nation 2030
RSS