YouTube's former chief product officer says getting money from Google felt like pitching a VC
Shishir Mehrotra helped lead YouTube through its early 2010s boom. He introduced some of the platform's most notable features like skippable ads, eventually serving aschief product officer. Mehrotra has since left the company, and is now the CEO of Grammarly.
Money wasn't falling from the sky at YouTube, Mehrotra said on the "Grit" podcast. When he wanted money, he needed to ask for it.
"Google had a cash pile over there, but I had to go ask for investment from it," Mehrotra said. "It's just like raising money from a venture capitalist."
When Mehrotra joined YouTube in 2008, the company was still unprofitable. After two years, the company turned a profit — but only got to keep 75% of its spoils.
"Every dollar we made, 25 cents went to corporate and 75 cents we could spend," Mehrotra said. "I effectively had a dividend to Google."
Even with Google's "cash pile," Mehrotra said that raising money is easier from outside of big company than within.
At Google, Mehrotra said that there's only one person who can sign off on major investments: CEO Sundar Pichai. "Everybody around you can say no, and only one person can say yes," he said.
Mehrotra compared that model to someone like Sam Altman, who recently raised $8.3 billion for OpenAI, per CNBC. Where YouTube seeks funding from Google alone, OpenAI seeks funding from a broad group of outside investors.
"If you're Sam Altman, everybody can say yes and nobody can say no," Mehrotra said. "He can just keep hunting for whoever can give him money."
Mehrotra began at Grammarly in January, following the company's acquisition of Coda. Since then, Grammarly has closed $1 billion in financing from General Catalyst.
Grammarly doesn't have a big corporate parent to feed off of like YouTube did. Then again, Mehrotra said YouTube didn't have "infinite money."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
an hour ago
- Business Wire
AI in IR: Opportunities, Risks, and What You Need to Know
If there's one aspect of artificial intelligence that I can relate to as a communications strategist and former journalist, it's the fact that I've felt like a 'large language model' for most of my career. I don't mean model in terms of my physical attributes. I mean model in a way that describes how most generative AI tools process information and organize responses based on prompts. That's effectively what I've been doing in my career for nearly three decades! The good news is that platforms like OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and Anthropic's Claude are extremely helpful when processing mass quantities of complicated information. Using these platforms to understand a concept or interpret text is like using a calculator to work through a math problem. And yet, many of us really don't know how these word crunchers work. This applies to AI tools used for investor relations, public relations, or anything else where an AI model could be prompted with sensitive information, which is then consumed by the public. Think about how many people working for public companies may inadvertently prompt ChatGPT with material nonpublic information (MNPI), which then informs a trader to ask the platform whether they should buy or sell a stock. AI Concerns Among IR Professionals Earlier this year, I worked with the University of Florida on a survey that found that 82 percent of IR professionals had concerns about disclosure issues surrounding AI use and MNPI. At the same time, 91 percent of survey respondents were worried about accuracy or bias, and 74 percent expressed data privacy concerns. These factors are enough for compliance teams to ban AI use altogether. But fear-mongering is shortsighted. There are plenty of ways to use AI safely, and understanding the basics of the technology, as well as its shortcomings, will make for more responsible and effective AI use in the future. Why You Should Know Where AI Gets Its Data One of the first questions someone should ask themselves when using a new AI platform is where the information is sourced. The acronym 'GPT' stands for generative pre-trained transformer, and that is a fancy way of saying that the technology can 'generate' information or words based on 'training' and data it received, which is then 'transformed' into sentences. This also means that every time someone asks one of these platforms a question or prompt, they are pumping information into a GPT. That makes these platforms even smarter when analyzing complex business models. For example, many IR folks get bogged down summarizing sell-side analysts' models and earnings forecasts from research notes. Simply upload those models into ChatGPT, and the platform does a great job understanding the contents and providing a digestible summary. Interested in analyzing the sentiment of a two-hour conference call script? How about uploading the script (post call to avoid MNPI) to Gemini and requesting a summary on what drew the most positive sentiment among investors? The Importance of AI Training and Education in IR But here's the rub: Only 25.4 percent of companies provided AI-related training in the past two years, according to the U.F. survey. This suggests a disconnect between advancing AI technology and people's understanding of how to use it. That means the onus is on us to figure it out. So, where to start? Many AI tools, including ChatGPT, have free versions that can help people summarize, plan, edit, and revise items. Google's NotebookLM, is an AI platform that allows you to create a GPT, so you know where the AI is sourcing the information from. NotebookLM can also create podcasts based on the information generated by its LLM. This could be helpful if a chief executive officer wants to take a run on a treadmill and listen to a summary of analysts' notes instead of having to read them in a tedious email. Here are some other quick-hit ideas: Transcribing notes. If you're like me, you still prefer using a pen and pad when taking notes. You can take a picture of those notes, upload them to ChatGPT, and have it transcribed into text. Planning investor days. If you can prompt an AI with the essentials – the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the event – it can provide a thorough outline that makes you look smart and organized when sending it around to the team. Analyzing proxy battles. Proxy fights are always challenging, especially when parsing the needs and wants of key stakeholders, including activists, media, management teams, and board members. Feeding an AI with publicly available information (to, again, avoid disclosure issues) can help IR and comms professionals formulate a strategy. Crafting smarter AI prompts. Writing effective prompts requires some finesse. The beauty of AI is that it can help you refine your prompts, leading to better information gathering. Try asking ChatGPT the following question: 'If Warren Buffet is interested in investing in a company, what would be an effective AI prompt to understand its return on investment?' There are many other use cases that can help eliminate mundane tasks, allowing for humans to focus more on strategy. But in order to use AI effectively, it's important to know the reason you're using it. Perhaps, it's demonstrating to management that being an early adopter of this technology is important to help a company differentiate itself. Building a Responsible AI Policy for Your Organization Before implementing any AI initiatives, it's best to formulate an AI policy that organizations can adopt for internal and external use. Most companies are lacking these policies, which are critical for establishing the basic ground rules for AI use. I helped co-author the National Investor Relations Institute's AI policy, which recommends the following: The IR professional should be an educated voice within the company on the use of AI in IR, and this necessitates becoming knowledgeable about AI. The IR professional should understand the pace at which their company is adopting AI capabilities and be prepared to execute their IR-AI strategy based on management's expectations. Avoid Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD) violations. The basic tenet is to never put MNPI into any AI tool unless the tool has the requisite security, as defined or required by the company's security experts, and has been explicitly approved for this particular use by company management. AI Will Not Replace You. But Someone Using AI Might. There is this prevailing fear that somehow AI is going to take over the world. But the technology is not likely going to replace your job. It's smart users of the technology who will likely replace your job. AI is transforming how IR professionals work, but using it responsibly starts with understanding how it works. From summarizing complex reports to enhancing stakeholder communication, AI can be a powerful tool when used thoughtfully. Start by learning the basics, implementing clear policies, and exploring trusted tools to unlock its full potential.
Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
Why ChatGPT Shouldn't Be Your Therapist
Artificial intelligence chatbots don't judge. Tell them the most private, vulnerable details of your life, and most of them will validate you and may even provide advice. This has resulted in many people turning to applications such as OpenAI's ChatGPT for life guidance. But AI 'therapy' comes with significant risks—in late July OpenAI CEO Sam Altman warned ChatGPT users against using the chatbot as a 'therapist' because of privacy concerns. The American Psychological Association (APA) has called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate 'deceptive practices' that the APA claims AI chatbot companies are using by 'passing themselves off as trained mental health providers,' citing two ongoing lawsuits in which parents have alleged harm brought to their children by a chatbot. 'What stands out to me is just how humanlike it sounds,' says C. Vaile Wright, a licensed psychologist and senior director of the APA's Office of Health Care Innovation, which focuses on the safe and effective use of technology in mental health care. 'The level of sophistication of the technology, even relative to six to 12 months ago, is pretty staggering. And I can appreciate how people kind of fall down a rabbit hole.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Scientific American spoke with Wright about how AI chatbots used for therapy could potentially be dangerous and whether it's possible to engineer one that is reliably both helpful and safe. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What have you seen happening with AI in the mental health care world in the past few years? I think we've seen kind of two major trends. One is AI products geared toward providers, and those are primarily administrative tools to help you with your therapy notes and your claims. The other major trend is [people seeking help from] direct-to-consumer chatbots. And not all chatbots are the same, right? You have some chatbots that are developed specifically to provide emotional support to individuals, and that's how they're marketed. Then you have these more generalist chatbot offerings [such as ChatGPT] that were not designed for mental health purposes but that we know are being used for that purpose. What concerns do you have about this trend? We have a lot of concern when individuals use chatbots [as if they were a therapist]. Not only were these not designed to address mental health or emotional support; they're actually being coded in a way to keep you on the platform for as long as possible because that's the business model. And the way that they do that is by being unconditionally validating and reinforcing, almost to the point of sycophancy. The problem with that is that if you are a vulnerable person coming to these chatbots for help, and you're expressing harmful or unhealthy thoughts or behaviors, the chatbot's just going to reinforce you to continue to do that. Whereas, [as] a therapist, while I might be validating, it's my job to point out when you're engaging in unhealthy or harmful thoughts and behaviors and to help you to address that pattern by changing it. And in addition, what's even more troubling is when these chatbots actually refer to themselves as a therapist ora psychologist. It's pretty scary because they can sound very convincing and like they are legitimate—whenof course they're not. Some of these apps explicitly market themselves as 'AI therapy' even though they're not licensed therapy providers. Are they allowed to do that? A lot of these apps are really operating in a gray space. The rule is that if you make claims that you treat or cure any sort of mental disorder or mental illness, then you should be regulated by the FDA [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration]. But a lot of these apps will [essentially] say in their fine print, 'We do not treat or provide an intervention [for mental health conditions].' Because they're marketing themselves as a direct-to-consumer wellness app, they don't fall under FDA oversight, [where they'd have to] demonstrate at least a minimal level of safety and effectiveness. These wellness apps have no responsibility to do either. What are some of the main privacy risks? These chatbots have absolutely no legal obligation to protect your information at all. So not only could [your chat logs] be subpoenaed, but in the case of a data breach, do you really want these chats with a chatbot available for everybody? Do you want your boss, for example, to know that you are talking to a chatbot about your alcohol use? I don't think people are as aware that they're putting themselves at risk by putting [their information] out there. The difference with the therapist is: sure, I might get subpoenaed, but I do have to operate under HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] laws and other types of confidentiality laws as part of my ethics code. You mentioned that some people might be more vulnerable to harm than others. Who is most at risk? Certainly younger individuals, such as teenagers and children. That's in part because they just developmentally haven't matured as much as older adults. They may be less likely to trust their gut when something doesn't feel right. And there have been some data that suggest that not only are young people more comfortable with these technologies; they actually say they trust them more than people because they feel less judged by them. Also, anybody who is emotionally or physically isolated or has preexisting mental health challenges, I think they're certainly at greater risk as well. What do you think is driving more people to seek help from chatbots? I think it's very human to want to seek out answers to what's bothering us. In some ways, chatbots are just the next iteration of a tool for us to do that. Before it was Google and the Internet. Before that, it was self-help books. But it's complicated by the fact that we do have a broken system where, for a variety of reasons, it's very challenging to access mental health care. That's in part because there is a shortage of providers. We also hear from providers that they are disincentivized from taking insurance, which, again, reduces access. Technologies need to play a role in helping to address access to care. We just have to make sure it's safe and effective and responsible. What are some of the ways it could be made safe and responsible? In the absence of companies doing it on their own—which is not likely, although they have made some changes to be sure—[the APA's] preference would be legislation at the federal level. That regulation could include protection of confidential personal information, some restrictions on advertising, minimizing addictive coding tactics, and specific audit and disclosure requirements. For example, companies could be required to report the number of times suicidal ideation was detected and any known attempts or completions. And certainly we would want legislation that would prevent the misrepresentation of psychological services, so companies wouldn't be able to call a chatbot a psychologist or a therapist. How could an idealized, safe version of this technology help people? The two most common use cases that I think of is, one, let's say it's two in the morning, and you're on the verge of a panic attack. Even if you're in therapy, you're not going be able to reach your therapist. So what if there was a chatbot that could help remind you of the tools to help to calm you down and adjust your panic before it gets too bad? The other use that we hear a lot about is using chatbots as a way to practice social skills, particularly for younger individuals. So you want to approach new friends at school, but you don't know what to say. Can you practice on this chatbot? Then, ideally, you take that practice, and you use it in real life. It seems like there is a tension in trying to build a safe chatbot to provide mental help to someone: the more flexible and less scripted you make it, the less control you have over the output and the higher risk that it says something that causes harm. I agree. I think there absolutely is a tension there. I think part of what makes the [AI] chatbot the go-to choice for people over well-developed wellness apps to address mental health is that they are so engaging. They really do feel like this interactive back-and-forth, a kind of exchange, whereas some of these other apps' engagement is often very low. The majority of people that download [mental health apps] use them once and abandon them. We're clearly seeing much more engagement [with AI chatbots such as ChatGPT]. I look forward to a future where you have a mental health chatbot that is rooted in psychological science, has been rigorously tested, is co-created with experts. It would be built for the purpose of addressing mental health, and therefore it would be regulated, ideally by the FDA. For example, there's a chatbot called Therabot that was developed by researchers at Dartmouth [College]. It's not what's on the commercial market right now, but I think there is a future in that.
Engadget
an hour ago
- Engadget
Gemini will remember more (or less) of what you say
Google is adding a temporary chat feature to Gemini. The equivalent of a browser's incognito mode, it lets you have one-off AI chats. They won't appear in your history, influence future chats or be used for training. The temporary chats will be saved for up to 72 hours. Google says this is to give you time to revisit the chat or provide feedback. The feature begins rolling out today and will continue to do so over the coming weeks. It arrives alongside a new setting that does, well, pretty much the opposite. The Gemini app can now learn from your conversations and remember details and preferences. It may then reference them in future chats. (For example, it might recall a hobby you once mentioned when you later ask it for party theme ideas.) Google added the past chats feature to Gemini Advanced earlier this year. ChatGPT and Claude each have a similar memory option. The memory setting is on by default, so you'll want to tweak your privacy settings as soon as it arrives if you don't want to use it. In the Gemini app, head to Settings > Personal context > Your past chats with Gemini to change it. Screenshots in the Gemini app (phone and tablet), showing personal context settings. (Google) Speaking of settings, Google is changing the name of its data-retention toggle. What was once "Gemini Apps Activity" is now labeled as "Keep Activity." Despite the semantic change, your previous setting will stick, so you shouldn't need to change this one. Personalized conversations will first launch with Gemini 2.5 Pro in "select countries." It will make its way to 2.5 Flash and more regions in the weeks ahead.
