You always have to make your own conclusions of course but it doesn't mean that it is useless or just wrong.

What value does Google has to cherry-pick the occupation metrics?

I really don't see any conclusions which would be such a game changer and critical, that this information has to be perfect.

And its Version 1 and an ongoing project.

"In the workplace, we show that while AI adoption spans occupations covering just above 88% of US employment, penetration remains shallow and overwhelmingly collaborative in nature, with end-to-end task automation limited in scope. Outside of work, AI spans activities making up about 98% of Americans’ non-sleep time, with disproportionately high use in high-friction tasks such as engaging with government and professional service providers, likely delivering economic value that standard national accounts may miss. Globally, adoption scales with national wealth and has broad linguistic distribution, with English queries representing only around a third of volume."

It sounds reasonable enough and it contains nothing off.

For me its interesting to read that english is less dominant and thats def something i was very atuned when GPT-3 came out: I started to write english and my native language and mixing up words etc. The quality of understanding in my native language is sledomly good when a new product comes out but it was very good already when using GPT-3.

In comparision to this, i'm also aware of a research paper stating that programming in certain languages like spanish is worse.

I don't know and that wasn't the point I made.

My company is a two digit billion dollar revenue company in the top 100.

My point was that real companies pay real money for AI.

But i use it daily at work and a lot of co-workers do too.

I never seen google blog articles as something millions of people read. For me these are small lenses in a big company were i pull out small details i might find interesting.

Im missing the marketing opportunity here.

The spending is a complete different topic though. Google/ABC can easily afford their investments. Microsoft and Amazon too. Even if shareholders are not that happy (the shareprice of alphabet doesn't tell this story though) with it.

Nonetheless the biggest issue with this spending are 401k and other retirement investments from people who can't control the investment and the undefined risk of it. Thats the only real 'risk' (not a small one for these people depending on it though).

It doesn't affect me if Google spends its money on AI.

Nonetheless the progress on AI is huge, it still hasn't slowed down, its now a political and global issue (us export restrictions, Chinas Moonshot AI/Deepseek, EU lagging behind).

At least form my point of view, i'm very surprised that we even risk all of this investment and see it as a possitive thing. Imagine AI/AGI is a technology which sits very far away from our current local minimum and the jump to the other local minimum is massivly expensive but massivly beneficial?

GPT-2/3 was able to inflict this vision into people and because of this, we get A LOT more compute, push again boundaries on compute and memory after a longer period of stagnation. These richest companies in the world like Google also leverage the AI spend into investment of fusion and other energy sources.

We already got a lot better vision ML algorithm because of this (tx to suckerbergs dino and segment anything), we have alphafold tx to Googles Deepmind etc.

AI only consumes currently a little bit more about bitcoin but is acutally beneficial.