Google’s Sundar Pichai Talks Seach, AI, and Dancing with Microsoft

Support for the show comes from Saks Fifth Avenue.

Sacks Fifth Avenue makes it easy to shop for your personal style.

Follow us here, and you can invest in some new arrivals that you'll want to wear again and again, like a relaxed product blazer and Gucci loafers, which can take you from work to the weekend.

Shopping from Saks feels totally customized, from the in-store stylist to a visit to Saks.com, where they can show you things that fit your style and taste.

They'll even let you know when arrivals from your favorite designers are in, or when that Brunello Cacchinelli sweater you've been eyeing is back in stock.

So, if you're like me and you need shopping to be personalized and easy, head to Saks Fifth Avenue for the Best Fall Arrivals and Style inspiration.

To remind you that 60% of sales on Amazon come from independent sellers, here's Scott from String Joy.

Hey y'all, we make guitar strings right here in Nashville, Tennessee.

Scott grows his business through Amazon.

They pick up, store, and deliver his products all across the country.

I love how musicians everywhere can rock out with our guitar strings.

A one, two, three, four.

Rock on, Scott.

Shop small business like mine on Amazon.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Karis Kusher.

And I'm Scott Galloway.

As governments around the world rush to figure out how to regulate artificial intelligence, Google CEO Sundar Pichai is rushing to assure the world that his company is doing everything it can to proceed responsibly.

In today's pivot feed, Nili Patel, editor-in-chief of The Verge, sits down with Pachai in a special episode of the Decoder podcast.

The two talk about everything from Sundar's vision for Google to the future of AI search to competition with Microsoft and more.

We hope you enjoy, and Scott and I will be back Friday if both of us make it back from the French Riviera.

Hello, and welcome to Decoder.

I'm Nili Patel, editor-in-chief of The Verge, and Decoder is my show about big ideas and other problems.

We have a very special episode today.

I'm talking to Sundar Pachai, the CEO of Google and Alphabet.

We spoke the day after Google I.O., the company's big developer conference, where Sundar introduced new generative AI features in virtually all of the company's products.

It's an important moment for Google, which invented a lot of the core technology behind the current AI moment.

Company is very quick to point out that the T in ChatGPT stands for Transformer, the large language model technology first invented at Google.

But OpenAI and others have been first to market with generative AI products.

And OpenAI in particular has partnered with Microsoft on a new version of Bing that feels like the first real competitor to Google search in a long time.

So I wanted to know what Sundar thinks of this moment, and in particular, what he thinks about the future of search, which is the heart of Google's business.

Web search right now can be pretty hit or miss.

There's a lot of weird content farms out there, and AI-based search might be able to just answer questions in a more natural way.

But that means remaking the web, and really remaking Google.

And Sundar is already going down the path of remaking Google.

He just reorganized Google and Alphabet's AI teams, moving a company called DeepMind inside Google and merging it with the Google Brain AI group to form a new unit called Google DeepMind.

You know I can't resist an org chart question, so we talked about why he made that decision and how he made it.

We also talked about Sundar's vision for Google, where he wants it to go, and what's driving his ambition to take the company into the future.

This is a jam-packed episode.

Sundar and I talked about a lot, and I didn't even get to Google's AI metadata plans or what's going on with RCS and Android.

Maybe next time.

Okay, Sundar Prachai, CEO of Alphabet and Google.

Here we go.

Sundar Prachai, you are the CEO of Alphabet and Google.

Welcome to Decoder.

Nila, it's a pleasure pleasure to be here.

I'm very excited to talk to you.

There's a lot to talk about.

I have some like big decoder structure questions because you made some big structural changes.

It's real Decoder Bay, but I want to start with the news.

Yesterday was Google I.O.

You gave the keynote.

You announced, I would say, generative AI features in like every Google product that I can think of.

What's your favorite?

Yeah, it's got to be the new search generative experience we are working on bringing to labs.

It's our most used product, our most important product.

And so the the chance to make that product better through an evolution like that, you know, was one of the more exciting product challenges, I think.

And I think the team has risen to the challenge.

So I'm definitely very excited about it.

There are two demos.

I think that's very excited.

I think you know I want to talk to you about search a lot.

There are two demos that caught my eye.

One, you asked for a refund from an airline in Gmail with the Compose, and Gmail just wrote the email for you.

And then later, Dave Burke wrote an email email to Rick Osterlor saying, Rick had done a good job.

How would you feel if one of your employees wrote a suck-up email to you using generative AI?

You know,

it's a question

I've been reflecting on, particularly in personal contexts.

I think...

There'll be a societal norm which will evolve over time.

People will decide where it's appropriate versus not.

The last thing you want is an AI-generated email getting responded by AI.

I think that's fine for the airline voucher case.

It's definitely not fine in a personal case.

Though I've had friends who have said there are moments where

they quite aren't the best at writing those types of emails and they could use some help, right?

But I think over time as a society, we will figure out where the right norms are.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: Do you think even in that airline case, there's an element of it that's programmatic, right?

Where if you say the right words to the airline customer service agent, you might get a refund.

And the AI might know those right words.

And the airline might say, look, we're going to have an AI just scanning emails for these correct words and giving refunds.

And that might actually be the loop.

You know, I'm worried today.

Maybe airlines are already using AI to look at your emails.

So maybe it gives the

humans a chance to get through.

You know, there are times it's okay to view it as there is efficient brokering in those cases so that two people can efficiently complete a transaction.

And I think that's fine.

But it depends on what the use case is for.

But you're right.

I think there'll be cases in which people will figure out, you know, there is a better, efficient way to handle this back and forth, and maybe that's okay.

Yeah.

You're on the bleeding edge of this here.

So I'm wondering, as you see those norms changing, have they changed in your work here at Google?

Or are you saying, we're going to give it to a lot of people and see what happens?

I went through this with Smart Reply and Smart Compose.

At first, it happened I would feel weird using it.

Later, it included emotion in those suggestions.

I think I'm better now only at using an emotion which I genuinely feel.

So I think people adapt to these things better than we think to.

You know, I think humans very quickly learn how to use these technologies too.

So I think that makes it different.

So, but I think we'll go through a similar journey like that with this.

Yeah.

I want to zoom out.

You said something in the keynote that really caught my attention.

You said that AI is a platform shift.

And I think I agree with you, but it struck me that it's important to understand exactly what you mean by a platform shift.

Why do you think AI is a platform shift and what does that mean to you?

Definitely, I see it as an extraordinary platform shift.

Pretty much it'll touch

everything, every sector, every industry, every aspect of our lives.

So one way to think about it is no different from how we have thought about maybe the personal computing shift, the internet shift, the mobile shift.

So, along that dimension, I think it's a big shift.

But I think it's deeper than that.

I've called it the most profound technology humanity is working on.

I think it'll tap into the essence of even to your starting questions.

There's a reason you asked about that.

I think that shows the nature of what AI is.

And so, I think it'll touch everything we do.

So, I view it as one of those more deeper shifts that way.

Tough to find the right words, but I view it as

it will, even as an industry, like a very traditional industry, you wouldn't say internet affected healthcare a lot.

Did it affect healthcare?

I'm not fully sure, right?

But with AI, I think about it.

I'm like, it's going to affect healthcare a lot over time.

And so along those terms, I think there's a deeper meaning to the word platform shift here, I mean as well.

On the smaller definition, right?

There weren't personal computers and there wasn't the internet and there wasn't was, there wasn't mobile, there wasn't cloud.

Now there's, right, and mobile and cloud in particular just changed the way we behave and like across every dimension you can think of.

That's what I think of a platform shift as, right?

It's a very narrow, it's much more parochial than yours.

Yeah, all right.

It's still ready, baby.

We can get into philosophy of can commuters communicate with us and we will.

But just on that, on that level, Okay, it's a platform shift.

A lot of people are going to change their behavior.

That's usually when companies emerge and it is when institutions tend to fade.

Google is a company that emerged, right, particularly with the internet.

And with the shift to mobile, I think became a dominant player.

Do you see that risk for Google inside of this platform shift?

You know, I felt the risk more with mobile.

Here's why.

I think we had to adapt to mobile as a company.

We were built on the internet.

We weren't, by any stretch of imagination at the time, what I would call as a mobile native company.

So mobile was something which came and we had to adapt to it hard across our products.

And it was a disruptive moment.

People are using applications now directly.

You could install apps on your phone and so on.

So there was a lot of questions.

With AI, I feel like this is our seventh year as an AI first company.

I feel we are AI native.

Pretty much most teams at Google intuitively understand what it is to use AI in our products.

Also, we've driven the state of the art in some ways.

We are helping drive this this platform shift.

So I feel we are AI native.

We deeply understand what it is to both drive the state of the technology and incorporate it in our products.

All these shifts are disruptive.

But I look at the scale and size of the opportunity ahead with AI.

And

we've invested so deeply in AI for a while.

And we have clarity of not just building AI in our products, clearly providing it to the rest of the world.

And we have planned for that from the very beginning.

So makes me excited about this moment.

You said it's seven years of AI first company.

I've seen you demo LLMs in the past.

I've seen other generative AI tacket I.O.

in the past.

You've been talking about it for a long time.

In 2015, one of the biggest debates we had coming into Google I.O.

was I wanted to show, we were launching photos.

I wanted to show that these were powered by deep neural networks.

There was such a debate coming into the keynote, do we show?

Because we were taking a frog and showing how the network would figure out it's a frog and people were scared you know they were like you know why are you showing the legs of a frog that it first understands you know you're breaking a frog into its component parts

but i felt it was important to explain to the world that there's this shift called deep neural networks which was going to change everything yeah so you know anyway

it made me reflect on that we've been talking about this for a long time yeah i remember very clearly you once had a conversation with pluto that's right and no one could quite figure out why you were talking to pluto and you you skip ahead to now, and it's like, oh, that was the technology, and that was the demo.

We had built Lambda because it wasn't an accident.

We were building a conversational dialogue based on AI, because we had built Google Assistant, and we realized the limitations of our approach.

We had this vision for where it could go, but it was a handcrafted system.

So we knew we would need...

you know, more of a deeper AI approach.

And so, yes, you know, talking to Pluto was, we were effectively conversing with Lambda internally, but from a safety standpoint, we had restricted it to be Pluto.

Yeah.

So here's the criticism.

The platform shift that is occurring that everyone can see was not kicked off by Google, right?

It was kicked off by OpenAI and ChatGPT and Microsoft to some extent.

And it's because you were being responsible, you're being cautious.

I think maybe the kickoff this platform shift was an accident.

I don't think that OpenAI was gunning for a moment like this.

What made it so that Google is reactive to this moment instead of proactive and kicking off the platform shift?

I would argue some of what drove the platform shift was the work we did in Transformers and a lot of the underlying technology too.

What I think changed, the point of inflection is

how ready users were.

It's almost like that moment where you realize,

because these technologies,

they have pitfalls, they have gaps.

But you realize you're at a moment in time where people are ready to use it.

They understand it and they are adapting to it.

So that's the moment.

And you know, we realized it and we started working on it.

I just think we took some time to get it right.

And for us that was important, given our products are used by so many people.

And in important moments, I thought it was important to get it right.

So to me, it was just that.

And so

I don't think you look back, let's say you go back all the way to the internet.

Google wasn't even there when the internet shift happened.

So I think there is this notion that this one of the deepest platform shifts on day one is what sets it.

I just don't subscribe to that.

Yeah.

Do you think the level of hallucination or error that you see in something like ChatGPT, is that just unacceptable for you?

It's sort of the head of all product at Google?

We have to figure out how to use it in the correct context, right?

So for example, if you come to search and you're typing in

Tylenol dosage for three-year-old,

it's not okay to hallucinate in that context.

And so it's not that, you know, whereas if you're just coming and saying, help me write a

like

poem on some topic, it's okay if you get it wrong.

So it's all I mean about getting it right is getting those details right.

And we've made progress on the hallucination problem by, in the context of search, by grounding it.

corroborating what we do there with our ranking work.

And so it just takes time.

But you know, that, you know, so things like that is what I meant.

And, you know, it's a research problem.

We will all make progress on hallucination.

So I don't think there's anything inherently,

I'm not saying it's not usable.

It's just that we had to take the time to get it right.

But what I would say here is OpenAI is very much the disruptor here, right?

They have a product that isn't quite as reliable as Google search and answering questions, but on some set of queries, it's better.

It's more interesting to use.

It's a different paradigm.

The users were ready for it.

but then it gets things wrong, just like left and right.

One of my favorite examples here, people are walking to libraries asking to check out books that don't exist because they've asked for a list of books.

That would not be acceptable, I think, as a result in Google search.

There have been times where Bard, I looked for some products in Bard and it offered me a place to go buy and a URL and it doesn't exist at all.

And so all these models have the same underlying problem.

Yeah.

But doesn't mean that

there are plenty of use cases which we all get excited by.

So I think both can be simultaneously true.

But do you see that sort of classic disruption curve?

This is a bad example, and I'm just going to use it, but forgive me for it.

Google searches the mainframe and AI is the PC, right?

This is a classic disruption example.

It doesn't do everything the big computer can do, but it's cheaper, more accessible.

Maybe the results are more useful in certain contexts, but it's also worse on a host of other variables.

No, I don't see it that way because, A, Google search is evolving.

What you're saying, if Google search said we're always going to be where it was,

for many years, you know, we did evolve beyond the Temple links too, and people would ask us, why are you doing it?

We always would say, this is what users are looking for, right?

You know, the debate, sometimes users want answers.

So we're always trying to get it right for users.

This is a moment in which user expectation is shifting.

We're going to adapt to it.

We're also doing BOD, right?

And we are now making BOD more widely available.

That gives us the sandbox where where we, you know, in an unconstrained way, push the frontiers of what's possible too.

So between search, the new search-generative experience, between BARD, you know, to me, I view it as a moment in which this feels so far from a zero-sum game to me.

Yeah.

That's how we see it today.

Like people are coming using search, trying out new things, which is why I'm excited to push out this new experience too, because I think people will respond to it.

So a few months ago, I was at the launch of Bing, which is powered by ChatGPT.

I saw Sachinidal there, and i'm sure you know this but he said i have a lot of respect for sundar and his team but i want google to dance and then he said i want people to know that microsoft made them dance uh one i just want to know how you felt when you heard him say that and two do you think he danced uh he dancing Look, I've said I have a lot of respect for Satya and team as well.

And I think he partly said that so that he would ask me this question.

I'm pretty sure that happened.

You know, for me, maybe I'll say it this way.

I think we started working on this new search-in data experience last year.

To me, it's important in these moments to separate the signal from the noise.

For me, the signal here is there is a new way to make search better in a way we can make our user experience better.

But we had to get it right.

And to me, that's the North Star.

So it was important.

That's the signal.

The rest is noise to me.

So to me, it was just important to work and get it right.

And that's what we've been focused on.

We'll be right back.

Not all journalism is the same.

Take The Guardian.

Our coverage has something unique, fierce independence.

Nobody owns us or tells us what we can and can't say, so we're free to report the whole picture.

We connect what's happening in Washington to the rest of the globe, expose corruption wherever we find it, and give fresh perspective on everything, from wellness and soccer to culture, the climate, and more.

Read, watch, and listen to The Guardian for free at theguardian.com.

We all have moments where we could have done better, like cutting your own hair,

yikes, or forgetting sunscreen so now you look like a tomato.

Ouch.

Could have done better.

Same goes for where you invest.

Level up and invest smarter with Schwab.

Get market insights, education, and human help when you need it.

Learn more at schwab.com.

We're back with Sundar Pichai.

So let's talk about search as it is now and search where you want it to go with this generative experience.

A search business is incredibly lucrative.

The European Union has spent like two decades trying to introduce competition in search.

Like there's a browser ballot or a search ballot on Android.

Google is still dominant.

But it has decayed over time, right?

SEO has infected the web.

Like have you ever done a search and ended up on some horrible SEO content farm?

Does this happen to you?

Yes, but it's happened to me over 20 years, right?

You know, search has always been finding high quality content from others.

So

there are moments where we feel like, okay, there's a direction in which we are not getting it right or falling behind, but then we work hard to fix it.

So it's always been search has been that way but you have an entire team quantitatively measure these things though right so our work in search quality is about you know internally we work hard to quantitatively measure user satisfaction with search how do users finding you know search and we are seeing that over time so in some ways when you did the bird work the mum work all that led to some of the biggest quality improvements we saw in search in a long time.

So you're right.

I've run into content forms and there are times users have said, look, I want more unique voices and perspectives.

And, you know, and we've been working on how to get that right.

And so that's part of how we will evolve search for certain use cases as well.

You have a good example.

I mean, you did a great redesign of the Verge.

I think it's about a year since you guys did it.

Yeah.

Let's close it on that, yeah.

Did it.

And it's nothing like, you're not designing it with any view of like what Google search wants you to do.

That's in there.

Our designers care about SEO.

Yeah, you know, but in a good way, but I think like I see

the story stream, right?

You know, and the most popular feed.

I use it.

I go there to see what's important.

And I think Verge's done well through it, right?

And so I think it's still very possible to do good, great work.

I also think the information ecosystem is so large.

I think people constantly underestimate it.

When I look at the world of

Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok,

destinations like what you are, New York Times is, Wall Street Journal is, the Washington Post is,

in terms of news, I look at the sports destinations I go to.

And so I think it's way

more richer than people fully estimate.

But this is not to say there's not always hard work to get it right, right?

So what I'm saying is you're only as good as the web.

Like at the end of the day, Google search can only really show you what's on the web.

Not as good as the richness of the web.

Right.

Yes.

So, but if you're a new creator and you're, you just want to communicate with some audience, it is far more likely that you will end up on a TikTok or you'll end up on a Substack or you'll end up on Instagram, maybe YouTube, which you have access to.

But those platforms are

not so visible to the average Google search user.

So the new stuff, the high stuff, the more interesting stuff maybe, is ending up on platforms that Google search can't see.

And the web is being pushed towards the incentives of Google search.

Like, when was the last time you tried up getting your credit card?

It's been a while.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Like, that just that experience, right, is like a totally optimized experience.

It's almost not human-readable anymore in a particular way.

Yeah.

And I'm just wondering, you see search generative experience.

Is this your opportunity to change those incentives?

Do you see that as creating better incentives to create for the web again?

You know, it's going to be a fact of life.

I think mobile has come.

Video is here to stay.

So there's going to be many different types of content.

And, you know, the web is not at the center of everything like it once was.

And I think that's been true for a while.

Having said that, it's ironic that all the recent launches of

these products are all like, you know, bar, chat GPS.

They're all web-based products.

I can do 30 minutes on mobile app stores and why the innovations on the web, but I don't think I have enough time.

And, you know, Nila, I worked on Chrome.

I've cared about the web for a long time.

The web belongs to no one.

And so

there is inherent value in that.

And there are aspects of the web which are stronger than what most people realize.

But I want to underestimate with AI, as AI becomes multimodal,

this distinction we feel between text and images and video blurs over time.

So

today we feel those walls.

At Google we've always tried to bridge these things.

We did universal search.

We try to bring all these forms together.

With AI I think so what maybe a young content creator creates it in the form of a video

but down the line maybe there is ways by which you can consume it in the context of Google.

Obviously all the details have to be figured out and there are business models.

But these platforms have to let you in, right?

It's not you can't search against Instagram.

I can, but we can against YouTube Yeah, that's right.

Right.

As an example.

And maybe there are other platforms.

We have to create the incentive for them to put it up there.

And then that's on us to do.

So I think, you know, I look at it as, is user need for information going up or down?

It is.

There's more sources of information than ever before.

So I just somehow feel more optimistic over time because these same questions were very deep few years ago.

Like I remember people asking me about it.

But I come all the way today and you know, and I think, if anything, I'm using a lot more of the web still,

right?

And you know, I go to the Verge website all the time.

Believers in the web, we're the last ones.

I understand.

But you know, my usage still tells me

I go to websites directly every day where each day they're trying me over and over and over again to download the mobile app.

They're getting me to agree to some cookies and all that stuff.

But the web has worked its way through all that.

I hope it gets better,

but

I'm optimistic.

Yeah.

As you answer more and more of the questions in the search generative experience, I think you gave an example of essentially an automated buying guide, right?

I think it was for a bicycle.

And then you asked a follow-up question.

I want it in red and it showed you the right colors.

Do you think that you're going to send out as much traffic from the search engine as you have in the past?

It was a big part of our design goal.

When I talk about getting it right,

I think people come to Google with many different intents.

There are times you just want an answer.

I'm going to go to New York tomorrow.

I want to know whether it's raining.

You want the answer.

But there are many times, particularly to Google, people come to explore, to discover.

And I think that's true.

People want to read reviews.

So our search generative experience, in fact, we really didn't want to just do where you come and talk to LLM.

That's why we did bots separately at first.

And in a search generative experience, you will see a lot of links.

You can click expand.

We go through and give for each of what the LLM has generated, what are the supporting sources.

So one of our design goals is to making sure people come and experience the richness of the web.

Because I think it's important for us to create that win-win construct.

And so, you know, that's something we put a lot of thought into it.

So I'm optimistic we'll get it right there.

I want to ask some decoder questions.

There's a big one here.

I joke that it's a show about org charts.

You are the CEO of both Alphabet and Google.

You made a big decision about your work chart.

You had a company called DeepMind that was part of Alphabet.

You pulled it into Google.

You combined it with Google Brain, which is the AI part of Google.

You picked a new leadership.

Walk me through that decision in the context of I wanted to make these products and I needed to change my work chart to get there.

You know, for a while, obviously, you know, I felt fortunate we had arguably

two of the top three maybe research teams in the world.

I mentioned this at I.O.

I think if you go back and look at the, I didn't even put up all the list of the things they had done.

You know, if you look at the 10 to 20 seminal breakthroughs, which led to this moment where we are, those two teams together account for a large number of them.

But it was clear to us that as we started going through this journey to build more capable models,

one of the things that was holding us back was the computational resources that we would need.

And so we would need to pull them together.

So in some ways, and I think the good thing is the teams themselves came to the realization.

So Gemini predates

the combining of the two teams.

So they started working together jointly on Gemini.

And that was a great experience because seeing bringing, it's almost like being able to pull together two great teams.

and seeing that and how well it's working.

And I think conversations with Demis and Jeff naturally led to that moment.

So I think it was a good time to do it as we are also pivoting more from research to commercial production ready models at scale and also needing to do it safely and responsibly, which means you have to dedicate a lot of resources to testing and safety.

And so the combination of all that made it the right moment.

And so that's what led to this moment.

So that's the strategy, side, right?

You've got two teams, they have redundancies redundancies and their resource needs and their infrastructure needs.

But then there's you actually deciding, okay, I've got two leaders on two teams.

I'm going to pick one.

The teams have different cultures.

I want this culture.

I would like to get more of this output and less of this redundancy.

How did you make those decisions?

You know, you're right.

It's always about, you know, I think the most important thing is having clarity about what you're trying to accomplish.

And, you know, once you do that, you know, it's always about then everything else follows from that.

In this case, Jeff clearly had expressed a desire for a while to be more of a chief scientist.

Jeff, before he literally has built some of the most important systems we use at Google today.

He is, at least to me, without a doubt, the best engineer Google has ever had.

And his desire to spend more time doing that.

And Demis is an extraordinary leader of teams.

He has been working on building capable AI systems from the first day I met him.

This is what he has been wanting to do.

And so he's super excited.

So the combination of knowing the people you have, what makes sense, all falling from the first principle of what you're trying to accomplish, is what leads to the other decision.

So in some ways, it was a clearer set of next steps from there.

Did you make a phone call?

Did you have a meeting?

Did you have Gmail write a note for you?

I don't know.

We had a lot of good meetings.

James Monika played an important role because in the context of Gemini, we were bringing these teams together anyway.

And

Jeff naturally was spending time doing a lot of the engineering work.

And so it all made sense.

And just a few conversations led to the right outcome.

I would say bringing the two teams together is indicative of a larger change in Google and the tech industry at large, which is getting smaller, more efficient, less redundancy.

You and I have told many jokes about Google's six messaging apps in the past.

Are you focused on tightening up on more focused execution here?

You know, yes.

And the one thing I would say, look, I do think it's one of our strengths.

It's not an accident we have 15 products with the scale we have or six products over 2 billion users each.

You know, these are products for which we have committed for a long time.

But clearly, we all are trying to do more with constraints now.

Yeah.

areas where you can be more nimble.

We have been very focused on that.

And we've always done things, you know, at one point we had YouTube music and Google Play Music.

So I had to combine the two teams and said, no, you're going to be one music team.

Yeah.

Right.

And so there's always moments like that.

But that's the default for Google, right?

Is you have multiple shots and you combine them in the end.

In some cases, but you know, you think about, I think people underestimate it.

You think about search or you think about maps or you think about photos or you think about Gmail.

You think about workspace.

You think about the focus we have had on cloud.

You think about the fact we bought YouTube in 2006 and how we have executed since then to make YouTube what it is today.

I think we have some high-profile areas like messaging.

But even there, if you look at our last few years, the focus on both Google Meet and chat and the platform side of RCS, the fact we have relentlessly focused to start from zero, and I'm confident, I mean, we announced RCS is now over 800 million users.

There was a big applause line yesterday.

Yeah.

And Dieter was the loudest cheer in the room.

I heard him.

I literally think, you know, I could pick out Dieter's of applause from the others.

But, you know, I think we are committed to being deeply focused.

I mean, even AI is an example of that.

We've been focused on AI for

over a decade.

And in the case of AI, it was a deliberate decision to have because how important it was, we were fine with having that exploration that came from two different teams because those teams had different strengths.

Like DeepMind, we're early believers in reinforcement learning.

In a way, Google wasn't.

So to me, that diversity was important too.

But there are moments where you say, you know, it's time to approach it a bit differently.

But I think these are decisions you need to make.

There's another challenge for Google inside of all this.

If you believe it's a platform shift, this might be the first platform shift that regulators understand, because it's very obvious what kind of labor will be displaced.

Lawyers, mostly, is my gather.

They can see, okay, a bunch of white-collar labor will go away.

Like a C-plus email about a transaction, entire floors of those people can be reduced.

And they seem very focused on that risk.

And then there's the general AI risk that we all talk about.

When Google first did search, it was an underdog, right?

And it won a lot of court cases along the way that built the internet.

The Google Books case, the ImageSearch case with Perfect 10, the Viacom case with YouTube, right?

It was an underdog, but it was...

obviously delivering a ton of value.

Now you're at the White House having an AI summit.

I'm confident you're going to end up in government, like capitals around the world talking about AI.

Do you think you're in a different position now than that scrappy underdog inventing the internet?

You're the incumbent.

Are you playing a different role?

Two parts to the question.

On the first part, briefly, for 20 years of tech automation, people have predicted all kinds of jobs would go away.

Movie theaters were supposed to end.

They kind of did.

But movies are thriving more than ever before.

There's a writer's strike, right?

I mean,

the labor cost paid to writers has dropped so precipitously that they're on strike right now.

No, but there's been writer strike before, and those things will continue, right?

There's always going to be.

All I mean is unemployment over the last 20 years of tech automation.

Hasn't fully, 20 years ago when people exactly predicted what tech automation would do.

Yeah.

There are very specific pronouncements of entire job categories which would go away.

It hasn't fully played out.

So I think there's a chance that AI may actually,

because I think the legal profession is a lot more than, you know, there's a chance, you know,

being a lawyer,

which is why I can opine on it, because I quite don't know a lot about it.

But, you know, something tells me

more people may become lawyers because the underlying reasons why law exists and legal systems exist aren't going to go away because those are humanities problems.

Yeah.

Right.

And so AI will make the profession better in certain ways, might have some unintended consequences, but I'm willing to almost bet

10 years from now, maybe there are more lawyers.

I don't know.

I don't know.

But, you know, so it's not exactly clear to me how all this plays out.

I think too often we think there are new professions constantly getting created.

I don't mean to lightly, I do think there are big societal labor market disruptions that will happen.

governments need to be involved, there needs to be adaptations, skilling is going to be important, but I think we shouldn't underestimate the beneficial side of some of these things too.

And it's complicated is maybe

how I would say it.

On your second question, governments, every legal systems will always have to grapple with the same set of problems.

There is a new technology.

It has a chance to bring unprecedented benefits.

It has downsides.

I think you're right with AI, people are more trying to think ahead than ever before, which gives me comfort because of some of the potential downsides to this technology.

I think we need to think about it.

We need to anticipate as early as we can.

But I do think the answers for each of this is not always obvious to me, right?

I think it's not clear to me you hold back AI in a straightforward way.

That's not the right answer.

It has geopolitical implications.

So it's again a complex thing we will grapple with over time.

I think from our standpoint, we are a bigger company.

So I do think we will come to it in a more responsible way.

There are places where we will engage and try to find what the right answers are.

And so maybe our approach will be different for sure, I think, as we go through it.

One of the things I think about a lot is that set of cases I talked about, Google Books or Viacom on YouTube, right?

You were distributing more information than ever before.

And there was a bunch of media companies who said, no, it's ours.

You can't have it.

And you had to go fight it out.

And just access the information was so valuable to people that Google was able to win.

This is a different turn, right?

Publishers around the world, media people, Hollywood artists, Drake, are saying, hey, that's mine.

And you took it and you trained an AI on it.

And now there's fake Drake singing songs on YouTube.

And they're going to try to stop you, right?

There's already copyright lawsuits.

Do you think that you're, as the incumbent, you have a bigger responsibility to that conversation than some of the startups who might be running that original Google playbook of saying, we're going to ask for forgiveness and not permission?

I do think we have a bigger responsibility.

So, you know, one of the things I think YouTube has done well, you know, I think with the work on content ID.

And I think it's brought a deep framework by which content right holders are,

that the system works.

So I think our responsibility there is making sure that this new wave continues to help artists and the music industry.

And so it's something we would think about deeply, I think, as we go through this.

Do you think that you will have to share revenues with publishers and musicians?

Right?

Because this is the thing that I'm worried about the most.

I mean, in the case of YouTube, we already clearly directly do.

But I also think it's important in these moments, we aren't the only player.

These are big disruptions coming.

Our goal would be to help the music industry partner with them and help them.

So that means maybe giving artists choice and control over transformative works and

giving them a say in it and figuring out those right answers.

Do you think you have to get ahead of the law?

This is a question here, right?

As you're saying, there's a lot of players.

Maybe government should make it so Drake can get paid when AI Drake sings a song.

Or do you think you have to get ahead of the law to be a good partner?

We all have to meet where users are going and where trends are evolving.

And so we plan to be, you know, when we say bold and responsible, I mean it.

You will see us be bold in some of these cases.

But underlying all that is a responsible direction.

We want to get it right.

Wish you could become a morning person.

You know, the type up before the sun, early morning runs, first one to the office with donuts and a smile.

How do they do it?

Easy.

With a new Galaxy Watch 8, sleep tracking and personalized insights from Samsung Health help you improve so you can wake up to a whole new you.

One who, dare I say it, skips the snooze?

It's possible.

Train your sleep with Galaxy Watch 8.

Learn more at Samsung.com.

Requires compatible Samsung Galaxy phone, Samsung Health app, and Samsung account.

When your investors, customers, and workers demand more from your business, make it happen with SAP.

The AI-powered capabilities of SAP can help you streamline costs, connect with new suppliers, and manage payroll, even when your business is being pulled in different directions.

To deliver a quality product at a fair price while paying your people what they're worth too, so your business can stay unfazed.

Learn more at sap.com slash uncertainty.

So I want to ask the biggest picture question of all.

Google is 25.

You've been the CEO.

You took over from the founders.

It turned into Alphabet.

You've had a very intense and very successful run at Google, especially if you look at just the business.

It's grown immensely.

We've talked here about big decisions, right?

Restructuring, appointing new leaders, moving people around, changing the culture to be more focused, navigating regular competitors asking you to dance.

All of that requires a very particular kind of ambition and focus.

So just for you personally, what is that ambition?

What is driving you personally to take the company through this moment?

You know, it's really from first principles, having clarity.

I believe in our mission.

For me, getting access to technology made a big difference in my life.

So the driving force for me has always been about bringing information and computing to more people to benefit society.

And so out of that comes the clarity for all the stuff I need to do.

So working from the first principle in some ways, then it becomes simpler.

But it's an exciting time.

Look, I've been preparing for this moment around AI for 10 plus years.

It's not an accident at Google, You know, we brought Jeff Finton in or, you know, we built Google Brain or we acquired DeepMind.

We spent the investment that's needed.

We built TPUs.

We announced TPUs at I.O.

maybe six years ago now.

And so this is something I've anticipated for a long time.

So to me, I'm excited that it's an inflection point.

But to your earlier question,

Because we have been doing this for 25 years, we know how important it is to be responsible from day one, which is why at Google I.O., you heard about our early work on watermarking and metadata in images.

I could have done an hour on metadata.

You should be very happy that I did that.

Some other time.

Yeah.

So, but you know, both parts are important, but it's an exciting time.

Yeah.

Well, Sundar, thank you so much for being on Decoder.

I look forward to talking again soon.

Thanks, Nilaj.

Appreciate it.

Thanks again to Sundar Pachai for taking the time to chat today, and thank you for listening to Decoder.

I hope you enjoyed it.

As always, I want to hear what you think about Decoder.

You can email us at decoder at the Verge.com.

We actually read all the emails, or you can hit us up on Twitter and TikTok at DecoderPod.

If you like the show, please send it to a friend and make sure you follow us wherever you get your podcasts.

If you really like the show, hit us with that five-star review.

Decoder is a production of The Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network.

Today's episode was produced by Raghu Manavalan and Jackie McDermott.

It was edited by Callie Wright.

Decoder Music is by Breakmaster Cylinder.

Our editorial director is Brooke Minters, and our executive producer is Eleanor Donovan.

We'll see you next time.