A man who worked at Google for a very long time left the company because he thinks they are not making good decisions about how to use AI. He says that they are trying to copy what other companies do, like Apple and Facebook, instead of thinking of new ideas themselves. He also says that this way of working might not be successful in the future. Some people agree with him and some people disagree. Read from source...

- The former Google engineer, Scott Jenson, who left the company last month after working there for 16 years, expressed his concerns about the AI projects he worked on at Google. He said that these projects were not user-driven but rather motivated by a fear of being left behind. This implies that he is projecting his own insecurity and dissatisfaction with his career onto the company's direction, without providing any concrete evidence or data to support his claims.
- The engineer also drew a parallel between the current AI endeavors and Google’s previous failure with Google+ 13 years ago, which was a reaction to Facebook. This is a classic example of hindsight bias, where he assumes that the outcome of one project determines the success or failure of another, without considering the differences in context, goals, and execution between them.
- He also mentioned that Apple is pursuing a similar AI lock-in with Siri. This is an irrational argument, as it implies that there is no room for innovation or diversity in the AI market, and that any company that tries to create a unique or differentiated solution is doomed to fail or replicate existing models.
- “The vision is that there will be a Tony Stark-like Jarvis assistant in your phone that locks you into their ecosystem so hard that you’ll never leave. That vision is pure catnip.” This statement reveals his emotional bias, as he uses hyperbole and exaggeration to appeal to the reader's emotions, rather than presenting a rational or balanced perspective on the topic.
- “When the emperor, eventually, has no clothes, they’ll be lapped by someone thinking bigger,” Jenson wrote, suggesting that the current approach may not be sustainable in the long run. This is a vague and unsubstantiated claim, as it does not specify who or what constitutes the "emperor" or the "bigger" alternative, nor does it provide any evidence or reasoning to support his prediction of future outcomes.