Don't bother applying to this one, as it's a ghost job posting (you can check for yourself in previous Who is Hiring posts dating all the way back to 2023)
buthe's not the CEO of gemini. He was a director which is a fairly vague term at Google (Peter Norvig says he's Director of Research at Google, but he was a director of research, not the director). Also he (Krawcyzk) locked his twitter and his linkedin. I can imagine Sundar is also looking for ways to get this guy out of the decision path for Gemini.
Don't believe Fox News when they say this guy is a Google exec. It looks like he's just a product manager. I wouldn't hold being spicy on Twitter four years ago against any man, but someone torpedoed their Gemini product and a product manager actually would have the authority to dictate these kinds of decisions. For example, the way the the language model has been programmed to rewrite the user's question before handing it over to the vision model. That's something that's most likely attributable to him. I mean it's one thing to change the training data to remove all information about personal appearance, a curious thing for that algorithm to fail to include Internet rumors about Abe Lincoln being black in that category, an annoying thing for it to refuse to generate content it considers offensive, and another thing entirely to program an information system to meddle with user queries on top of that since that shows an unprecedented level of disrespect.
As for whether a single product manager has that level of control over the serving product... query term rewriting has been a google strategy for quite some time and I doubt a single PM really can influence the product this way and still manage to launch, but as I don't work there and am not privy to the internal details of this product's launch, I can't really say.
That the product is full of disrespect for the user, that I agree. I don't envy the paeans trying to get promos by associating their name with gemini internally.
"Krawczyk’s official title is senior director of product management for Gemini, the company’s main group of AI models.
Though he’s lowering his public profile, Krawczyk is still engaged in the work on Gemini products and has the same title, according to sources with knowledge of the matter who asked not to be named in order to speak on the issue."
>From his linkedin: Senior Director of Product in Gemini, VP WeWork, "Advisor" VSCO, VP of advertising products in Pandora, Product Marketing Manager Google+, Business analyst JPMorgan Chase...
This. It's quite disrespectful to all those people who've actually put time and effort into studying proper technical subjects to earn those title (plus it's actual illegal to brand yourself as an engineer in some countries iirc)
Putting together some strings to feed to an ANI is NOT engineering.
I think, in this case, this is not so much gatekeeping as a different definition of what it means to be an engineer. Most anywhere outside of the United States shares that definition - one that requires one to have met certain obligations, both in terms of education and demonstration of abilities, but also of responsibility for the results of their efforts - that the US does not have. An engineer is responsible for what they have built in most places in a way that software engineers are not, and prompt engineers even less so. Those individuals (rightly) feel slighted that the term of art that applies to them does not hold the same weight in other circles, and that those individuals profit off of this difference in definition.
Sometimes the gate is kept because to pass beyond is to take on a responsibility that not everyone is fit or willing to bear.
Prompt engineer is derived from software engineer, which only is sometimes justified. It is basically diluting the word with increasingly less meaningful context. An engineer needs to be able to make guarantees and statements about what he engineers. You can do that with software if you are careful but the vast majority of software development is not engineering because engineering is too expensive and overkill most of the time.
But now that AI is in the mix and the results are purely stochastic, you basically threw out the entire meaning behind the word. The prompt engineer is unable to make guarantees and accurate statements about his prompts. He can't predict what the machine learning model is going to do, otherwise he wouldn't have asked.
It's not a very well thought of equivalence when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fire" without being censored, because platforms think (and most of the time they're right) that consumers are too stupid.
> Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned.
Right wingers encourage and carry out violence against people, based on traits like race, otherness, etc. Left wingers mostly focus on property, fascists ("Antifa") and sometimes the police. Both kinds of violence are wrong to various degrees, but I can kinda understand that someone who formulates a threat of vandalism against corporate symbols will get banned less likely than someone who formulates violent threats against minorities or specific persons.
These two things are not the same, it is the difference between someone keying your mercedes and someone assaulting you in the street. One thing is shitty, but survivable, the other isn't.
This characterisation is not based on my feelings or the claims of either side, but backed by publications like the annual report on the protection of the constitution as it is made by the German Verfassungsschutz – an organization which can hardly be described as left leaning: https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/DE...
I only found the summary in english, the full (German) version has more fine grained statistics which support my characterisation.
I wish we'd stop perpetuating this myth of "the time that's right for you".
Biology unfortunately or fortunately requires women to have healthy kids until a certain age, and the more women are aware of it the better for them (that is if they plan on having any)
