91–100 of 392 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If search quality degrades enough that people stop using it, it will impact ads.
How bad does search quality have to get before people go back to books? Until that point, it's not bad for ads. (In fact, if the ads are the highest-quality search results…)
An endless loop of AI generated content that gets posted to the web as original human generated content, with LLMs getting re-trained on this content and spitting out more content that also gets re-posted, resulting in a cesspool of BS masquerading as organic knowledge. I'm old enough to remember when Google provided meaningful search results rather than just SEO spam, the problem is about to get an order of magnitud…
Not a super well thought out article. Example: lots of speculative complaints that ChatGPT will lead to an explosion of low quality and biased editorial material, without a single mention of what that problem looks like today (hint: it was already a huge problem before ChatGPT). Ditto with the “ChatGPT gave me wrong info for a query” complaint. Well, how does that compare to traditional search? I’m willing to believe…
Poorly.
Traditional search is a dumb pipe, it gives you multiple links to review and evaluate on the basis of a well-understood PageRank algorithm. It's gotten a lot worse, but humans adapted to its limitations, and know what not to click on (affiliate marketing sites that rank #1 for instance).
GPT3 is a dead end, it provides a single response and you can either accept what it tells you or not. It is not going to disclose what links it scraped to provide the information, and it's not going to change its mind about how it put that info together. This is because of the old Arthur C. Clarke axiom "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”."
AI peddlers will use every UX dark pattern possible to make it look like what you are seeing really is magic.
An endless loop of AI generated content that gets posted to the web as original human generated content, with LLMs getting re-trained on this content and spitting out more content that also gets re-posted, resulting in a cesspool of BS masquerading as organic knowledge. I'm old enough to remember when Google provided meaningful search results rather than just SEO spam, the problem is about to get an order of magnitud…
Imagine a world where the only content you see is from publishers that you trust, and that your friends trust, and their friends, to maybe 4 or 5 hops or so, and the feed was weighted by how much they are trusted by your particular social graph. If you start seeing spammy content, you downvote it, and your trust level from that part of your social graph drops, and they are less likely to be able to publish things tha…
Not a super well thought out article. Example: lots of speculative complaints that ChatGPT will lead to an explosion of low quality and biased editorial material, without a single mention of what that problem looks like today (hint: it was already a huge problem before ChatGPT). Ditto with the “ChatGPT gave me wrong info for a query” complaint. Well, how does that compare to traditional search? I’m willing to believe…
Definitely, and I believe the post admits as much. The point he's making is that it's going to get exponentially worse, until the web is useless (the "tipping point" you mention).
What are the "new tools that we already needed" though? I think I'm too pessimistic in my outlook on these things, and would be interested to hear your optimistic future scenarios.
Right now, my view is that as that as long as something is profitable, it'll continue. A glimmer of hope is that once the web is completely useless, people will stop using it, and we can rebuild.
An endless loop of AI generated content that gets posted to the web as original human generated content, with LLMs getting re-trained on this content and spitting out more content that also gets re-posted, resulting in a cesspool of BS masquerading as organic knowledge. I'm old enough to remember when Google provided meaningful search results rather than just SEO spam, the problem is about to get an order of magnitud…
I made this comment on a post that got flagged for reasons I don't understand. I don't want to feel like I wasted my time so I'm re-commenting here: I was watching "HyperNormalisation" by Adam Curtis for the second time. In his segment on Eliza, an early example of a chat bot, I realized that Curtis makes a mistake in his interpretation of Eliza. For Curtis it's narcissism that makes Eliza attractive. Curtis levels t…
Web 2.0 was about users generating content on shared platforms (social networks). It wasn't about making it interactive — that is just a feature. The benefit of 2.0 was scaling-up businesses was easier than ever with new web tech. This spiralled directly into the start-up boom of the last decade.
Not sure I can take an article seriously that doesn't even understand its basic premises.
Imagine a world where the only content you see is from publishers that you trust, and that your friends trust, and their friends, to maybe 4 or 5 hops or so, and the feed was weighted by how much they are trusted by your particular social graph. If you start seeing spammy content, you downvote it, and your trust level from that part of your social graph drops, and they are less likely to be able to publish things tha…
Put it other way, today you already have an option to go to sources which are as scientific or objective or factual as possible. Most people choose otherwise.