Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bard and new AI features in Search

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1000 posts

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#881

Post by jacooper »

silisili wrote: post #494
jacooper wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already LLM search engines out there https://perplexity.ai

Oh I quite like this. I asked it, conversationally as I would to a human, "when is the super bowl", "what channel is it on", and "who is playing" in that order, and it answered all three perfectly. For fun, I asked it a more complex question - "will ford stock go up or down", and it answered with - Analysts have a median target of $13.00 for Ford stock in the next 12 months[1], with a high estimate of $21.00 and a lo…

The only problem is you can't actually add it to a browser.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#882

Post by Kiro »

arbol wrote: post #875
bzbee10 wrote: post #874

Here's a concrete scenario: StackOverflow makes money because people go to it for answers to their questions. The answers are provided by people who write them because they get points for providing good answers, that they use for reputation points to get good jobs. It's an ecosystem. Everybody profits. Now Google scrapes the contents, and provides a service where you just ask your question and it gives the best, most…

I use github copilot to create simple functions by typing the function name and copilot does the rest. This works reasonably well for basic stuff. It becomes unhelpful and starts creating incorrect paths to library functions as soon as you add your work context.

That's not my experience at all. I find Copilot the best at understanding and making sense of my work context, spanning many files. I find it less useful for creating generic functions.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#883

Post by fsh »

mrkramer wrote: post #565
generalizations wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone else remember the beginnings of youtube? Google tried to compete with them, with their own Google Videos. It sucked - and I remember reading how the engineers running it couldn't even figure out why they lost. In the end, Google just had to buy their competition, because they couldn't figure out any other way to win. They've tried to compete elsewhere, too, and I don't think they've ever been able to make a go…

Google already has a trackrecord of beating Microsoft. Do you remember Windows Phone? Well Google made Android in response to Windows Phone + Bing threat not in response to iPhone.

Google bought Android Inc. in 2005, 5 years before the launch of Windows Phone.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#884

Post by Kiro »

jb1991 wrote: post #876
arbol wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use github copilot to create simple functions by typing the function name and copilot does the rest. This works reasonably well for basic stuff. It becomes unhelpful and starts creating incorrect paths to library functions as soon as you add your work context.

This doesn't address the parent's excellent question: how do these models continually get trained and updated if they put their key sources of training data out of business? Related: I'd be quite worried if I was a Q/A site like StackOverflow or Quora.

It's not excellent. It's a red herring. Google is already showing responses on the SERP without you having to go to SO, without AI, and the hypothetical scenario hasn't happened.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#885

Post by wnkrshm »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #287
wiremine wrote: post #232

I agree this is bland corporate speak. But it reminded me of a question that's been floating around: A number of pundits, here on HN and elsewhere, keep referring to these large language models are "google killers." This just doesn't make sense to me. It feels like Google can easily pivot its ad engine to work with the AI-driven chat systems. It can augment answers with links to additional sources of information, be…

I guess a couple of reasons: 1) Because it is disruptive. Things may get shook up, and Google may not end up in as exclusive position as they are currently in. There's risk. 2) Because it's not obvious how advertising would fit in with a conversational interface. Google may stay as #1 search/answer engine, but would revenue be adversely affected?

ChatGPT and the like are the automated tools to seamlessly introduce advertising into text/image content - with the right prompt all the advertisements are between the lines. All it needs at the end is: this paragraph includes content sponsored by [Comapny name].

Edit: Why have ads separable from content if you can just weave them in? Ad-blocking is toast, you'll have to use another AI service to fish them out and resummarize.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#886

Post by nathanyukai »

bzbee10 wrote: post #874

Here's a concrete scenario: StackOverflow makes money because people go to it for answers to their questions. The answers are provided by people who write them because they get points for providing good answers, that they use for reputation points to get good jobs. It's an ecosystem. Everybody profits. Now Google scrapes the contents, and provides a service where you just ask your question and it gives the best, most…

The most accurate answer might still not be correct, so they'll still go to stackoverflow to ask new ones, thus keeping the pipeline alive ?

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#887

Post by hokkos »

alain94040 wrote: post #388
wiremine wrote: post #232

I agree this is bland corporate speak. But it reminded me of a question that's been floating around: A number of pundits, here on HN and elsewhere, keep referring to these large language models are "google killers." This just doesn't make sense to me. It feels like Google can easily pivot its ad engine to work with the AI-driven chat systems. It can augment answers with links to additional sources of information, be…

Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that people start using those chat bots massively as a replacement for Google search. Then the notion of keyword disappears. Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant. Of course, Google is a giant today with a history of machine learning innovation. So they have a good c…

you could imagine those AI trained to incorporate ads in their answers.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#888

Post by jhoelzel »

arbol wrote: post #875
bzbee10 wrote: post #874

Here's a concrete scenario: StackOverflow makes money because people go to it for answers to their questions. The answers are provided by people who write them because they get points for providing good answers, that they use for reputation points to get good jobs. It's an ecosystem. Everybody profits. Now Google scrapes the contents, and provides a service where you just ask your question and it gives the best, most…

I use github copilot to create simple functions by typing the function name and copilot does the rest. This works reasonably well for basic stuff. It becomes unhelpful and starts creating incorrect paths to library functions as soon as you add your work context.

That is in fact the elephant in the room: you will most likely never be able to actually use it for complex stuff because of the token limits required for ai.

Imagine analyzing a massive code base, sure it can tell you how you where solving function ex by translating it to natural language, but it still does not understand any of it.

As far as i know, training it on your dataset will not improve this.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#889

Post by jhoelzel »

wiremine wrote: post #232

I agree this is bland corporate speak. But it reminded me of a question that's been floating around: A number of pundits, here on HN and elsewhere, keep referring to these large language models are "google killers." This just doesn't make sense to me. It feels like Google can easily pivot its ad engine to work with the AI-driven chat systems. It can augment answers with links to additional sources of information, be…

i have come to realize that most of the "google killer" chanters, have in fact not used ChatGPT for in-detail work.

It absolutely has the same problem as Self-driving and only after 10 years we have accepted that it still is off for a very long time.

Mercedes is doing Marketing by calling it self driving, but limiting it to areas the car seems to have a 99% understanding off. They are betting on the fact that they will make more money on the 99% buying these cars, then the few cars that inevitably will crash.

Essentially how insurance has worked for ever.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#890

Post by alvah »

s3p wrote: post #399
alain94040 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that people start using those chat bots massively as a replacement for Google search. Then the notion of keyword disappears. Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant. Of course, Google is a giant today with a history of machine learning innovation. So they have a good c…

I think this is the same type of thinking that people had when they think technology will "steal" jobs, when in reality we have lower and lower unemployment as time goes on. Most likely this will not actually happen, and even if it did your content would still be valuable as an AI is analyzing it in a more nuanced way than just looking for keywords. Which, by the way, is exactly what search engines do.

A lot of the jobs we have now resemble David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" though. I suspect many jobs that largely consist of making powerpoints and looking out of a window could disappear tomorrow without upsetting anyone except the incumbents.
Post reply on HN