Google calls in help from Larry Page and Sergey Brin for A.I. fight

Post by hgsgm » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 9:49 PM UTC

v3ss0n wrote: post #267

trentnix wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only are the numbers impressive, the tools are impressive too. But that doesn't change the reality that ad revenue related to search is the lion's share of Google's revenue. That makes them exceptionally vulnerable for a company of their size and breadth. And in that vulnerable area, anecdotally at least, the search quality feels as if it has regressed over the years. Google was once the gateway to the web. Now t…

>Maybe I'm just nostalgic You're not. It was so much better up until 2018. Now it only indexing spam blogs And ai generated contents? Search quality is so bad today that duckduckgo is performing actually better in many cases, especially software development related queries

Post by tracerbulletx » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 9:50 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #188

datavirtue wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before it got choked off I had started using chatGPT for all of my searches. For code examples it blows google out of the water. For learning esoteric things (like congressional procedures etc.) quickly, it is without peer. I think Google's founders offered their take years ago...no one listened then.

ChatGPT is only "truthy", however. The algorithm will happily give you information that sounds true, but is actually wrong. And if it's wrong even 1% of time, you will still need some way to verify its claims.

Post by bushbaba » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 9:52 PM UTC

literallycancer wrote: post #243

vanviegen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one that bothers me most is that background services are now management by some AI thingy, in order to 'optimize battery usage'. Ergo, background services are now unreliable.

Wait until you find out about 5G causing brain cancer.

Post by dinkumthinkum » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 9:53 PM UTC

RheingoldRiver wrote: post #36

grumpyprole wrote: post #21

I've played with ChatGPT and see it as (at best) just complimentary to existing approaches. Unfortunately, I also see it as a vector of misinformation and potentially harmful. It appears highly knowledgeable on topics that I know little about, but otherwise it's replies are often riddled with errors and inaccuracies. It also seems unable to quote sources or references for such information. It seems reasonable to use…

I think this is called Knoll's law of media accuracy [0] or wikipedia [1] - "Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge". Interestingly enough, I tried asking ChatGPT what it was before googling it, and it confidently told me I was asking about "Confirmation Bias." But then when I told it what I was talking about was indeed Knoll'…

Post by gremlinsinc » Sun, Jan 22, 2023, 9:56 PM UTC

sdrinf wrote: post #191

karpierz wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying if ChatGPT had a regularly updated search index, and was capable of effectively ranking webpages to duck around SEO (adversarial webpages looking to hack the rankings), it'd be competitive with Google? Can you explain how this is any different than what Google does?

Not GP, but, and this is a hypothesis, it seems to me the realtime scrape might be enough. GPT seems incredibly intelligent in figuring out the ranking(!), importance(!) constraint-search(!) and personalization(!) by itself. Meaning, if OpenAI can do realtime fine-tuning of the web on a daily basis, they _might_ have sidestepped ~25 years of R&D from Google, and be an order-of-mag better.