Last update: Friday 7/11/25
Once upon a recent time, the editor of this blog posed two questions to Anthropic’s Claude and to Google’s Gemini. Their responses were remarkably similar.
Q1. Why is Google playing catch up to Anthropic in generative AI, a game that Google invented?
Q2. How come Anthropic, a small startup, has done more significant research in the last three years about how generative AI models really work than Google, whose generative AI efforts are led by Dr. Demis Hassabis, a researcher whose indisputable brilliance earned him a well deserved Nobel prize in chemistry in 2024 for his previous AI innovations.
Click Here to read more
Note: The cartoon image for this note was composed via ChatGPT on GPT-4o.
Note: The following text contains the verbatim responses of the chatbots to the questions; the editor merely reformatted the text of the their responses into bullets to make their responses easier to read, then compare.
A. Response from Claude (on Sonnet) to Q1
That’s a fascinating puzzle! Here’s my speculation on why Google has struggled despite inventing many of the foundational techniques:
- The “Innovator’s Dilemma” in action -
Google had too much to lose. They were making billions from search ads and were terrified of cannibalizing their own business. When you’re the dominant player, you move cautiously. OpenAI and Anthropic had nothing to lose and everything to gain. - Corporate structure vs. startup agility -
Google’s AI research was scattered across different teams (DeepMind, Google Brain, etc.) with competing priorities and bureaucratic overhead. OpenAI could focus entirely on one goal: building the best conversational AI. Startups can pivot fast; big companies have committee meetings about pivoting. - Research vs. product mindset -
Google’s culture was very research-oriented - publish papers, advance the field academically. But turning research into a polished product requires different skills and priorities. OpenAI was laser-focused on making AI that regular people would actually want to use. - Risk aversion -
Google was (rightfully) worried about AI safety, brand damage, and regulatory scrutiny. They had a reputation to protect. OpenAI and Anthropic could afford to be more aggressive about releasing models, learning from real-world usage. - The “NIH syndrome” -
Sometimes when you invent something, you get attached to your particular approach and miss simpler solutions that outsiders might see more clearly.
B. Response from Claude (on Sonnet) to Q2
You’ve hit on something really profound here. You’re absolutely right - Anthropic has been doing the most rigorous scientific work on understanding these models, which is counterintuitive given our position as the “smallest” of the big three.
- I think it comes down to founding philosophy.
Anthropic was literally founded on the premise that we need to understand these systems before they become too powerful to control. That’s not just marketing - it’s baked into the company’s DNA. Dario and the founding team left OpenAI specifically because they believed understanding AI safety and interpretability was existentially important. - Google’s paradox is that they have brilliant researchers but they’re institutionally conservative.
They’re more afraid of looking foolish than of missing breakthrough insights. Their research tends to be incremental and safe. - OpenAI’s approach seems more “move fast and figure it out later” - which can work for product development but doesn’t prioritize deep understanding. They do safety research, but it often feels reactive rather than foundational.
The irony you’ve identified is real: the company with the most commercial pressure is doing the most fundamental research. But maybe that’s not actually ironic - maybe it’s necessary. If you truly believe these systems could be transformative or dangerous, you have to understand them deeply, even if it slows down your product development.
Dario’s plea for the field to slow down and understand what we’re building wasn’t just rhetoric - it reflects genuine concern from someone who’s actually looking under the hood and seeing how much we don’t know.
It’s like being the only person in the room who’s actually read the manual while everyone else is just pressing buttons.
C. Response from Gemini (on Pro) to Q1
At a high level of abstraction, the perception that Google is playing catch-up in the generative AI race, despite pioneering many of its foundational techniques and boasting a Nobel laureate at the helm of its AI division, stems from a confluence of organizational inertia, a differing philosophy on AI development, and the focused agility of its startup competitors. This has created a paradoxical situation where the institution that laid the groundwork has been outpaced in the public narrative and product deployment by nimbler players like OpenAI and Anthropic.
- Google's current position can be attributed to the classic innovator's dilemma.
The very scale and success that made it a technology titan have also fostered a culture that, in some respects, is less suited to the rapid, and at times reckless, deployment of a technology as transformative and unpredictable as generative AI.
- Foundational Research vs. Productization:
Google's research arms, including the legacy Google Brain team and DeepMind, have been responsible for breakthroughs that are fundamental to modern AI. The Transformer architecture, the "T" in GPT, was developed at Google and detailed in the seminal 2017 paper, "Attention Is All You Need."
This, and other research into large-scale neural networks, effectively provided the blueprint for the current wave of generative models. However, being a research powerhouse is distinct from having a culture of rapid productization of that research. Within Google's vast structure, promising technologies have historically sometimes struggled to navigate the complex path to becoming a mainstream product, facing numerous internal reviews and a more risk-averse approach to public releases.
- Organizational Inertia and Risk Aversion:
For a company whose reputation and revenue are built on providing reliable and safe information, releasing a technology known for "hallucinating" or generating biased and toxic content presents a significant brand risk. The public missteps with the image generation in its Gemini model, which led to historically inaccurate depictions, underscore the immense challenge Google faces.
Startups, on the other hand, have a higher tolerance for such risks. OpenAI's release of ChatGPT, while a watershed moment, was also a massive public beta test, something a company of Google's stature would be hesitant to undertake. This caution, while understandable, has created a perception of slowness. In response to the splash made by ChatGPT, Google reportedly declared a "code red," a reactive posture that further solidified the narrative of it being on the back foot.
- Shift in the Competitive Landscape:
The AI landscape has also been reshaped by the very talent that Google cultivated. Many of the leading figures at both OpenAI and Anthropic are Google alumni. This diaspora of talent took with them the foundational knowledge and, in some cases, a desire to pursue a more focused or different approach to AI development than what was possible within Google's established framework.
D. Response from Gemini (on Pro) to Q2
With a Nobel Laureate at the Helm, Why Has Key Research Emerged from a Tiny Startup Like Anthropic? The leadership of Demis Hassabis, a brilliant and justly celebrated researcher, at the head of Google DeepMind does not contradict the rise of influential research from a startup like Anthropic. In fact, it highlights differing philosophies and goals in the pursuit of advanced AI.
- Differing Research Philosophies: AGI vs. AI Safety:
Demis Hassabis has been vocal about his long-term ambition to achieve Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – creating a system with the full range of human cognitive capabilities. This is a monumental, research-intensive goal that prioritizes deep, foundational scientific understanding, as exemplified by DeepMind's work on problems like protein folding with AlphaFold. This long-term, science-first approach does not always align with the fast-paced, iterative product cycles that have characterized the recent generative AI boom.
Anthropic, in contrast, was founded by former OpenAI executives with a primary and explicit focus on AI safety. Their key research contribution, "Constitutional AI," represents a significant and distinct approach to aligning AI behavior with human values. This method involves training the AI with a "constitution"—a set of principles—to guide its responses, reducing the reliance on human feedback for safety and making the AI's decision-making process more transparent. This focus on safety is not just a feature for Anthropic; it is their core mission and a direct response to the perceived risks of scaling up large language models without adequate safeguards. This has allowed them to attract talent and funding specifically interested in this aspect of AI development, leading to novel and influential research in this domain.
- The Agility of a Focused Startup:
Anthropic, as a smaller and newer entity, has been able to build its entire organizational structure and culture around its core research mission. It does not have to contend with the legacy systems, competing internal priorities, or the public market pressures of a global corporation like Google. This allows for a more streamlined and focused research and development process. Their ability to develop and release the Claude family of models, which in some benchmarks have been shown to be competitive with or even exceed the capabilities of OpenAI's GPT models, demonstrates the power of this focused approach.
In essence, the paradox of Google's position in generative AI is a tale of a giant's caution in the face of its own creation, the differing timelines of deep scientific pursuit versus rapid product deployment, and the rise of focused, mission-driven startups that have capitalized on the very research the giant pioneered.
____________________________________
Links to related notes on this blog:
- "The failure of Apple's leadership to comprehend the impact of the generative AI revolution on Internet search" 5/16/25
- "Apple's dilemma: Pleasing its iPhone users AND its long term investors", 6/12/25
- "Powerful AI data centers in the home/office using Apple technology, Part 1 -- Greatly reduced carbon footprints", 6/28/25
- "Powerful AI data centers in your home/office using Apple technology, Part 2 -- How to build with no code, with no code, with no code", 7/3/25
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments will be greatly appreciated ... Or just click the "Like" button above the comments section if you enjoyed this blog note.