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

The man who killed Google Search?

wheresyoured.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 939 posts

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#511

Post by jrflowers »

robertlagrant wrote: post #393
jrflowers wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense. It is possible that Google search got better and not worse since it was taken over by the guy that used to run Yahoo search, in which case context would thoroughly vindicate the choice to promote SEO spam sites and make ads and search results nearly indistinguishable.

This is like that scene in the Simpsons where Lisa tries to teach Homer that correlation does not equal causation by telling him that a rock keeps bears away, and he responds by wanting to buy the rock. Correlation isn't causation. Don't just buy that someone is fully to blame because someone told you they were fully to blame.

What part of the article would you refute aside from generally disagreeing with the idea that a manager can be considered responsible for what they’re in charge of? I’m not sure “management possesses an indelible philosophical unknowability” was Lisa’s point

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#512

Post by godshatter »

makeitdouble wrote: post #505
fuzztester wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here with YouTube, assuming they use ML, which is likely. They routinely give me brain-dead suggestions such as to watch a video I just watched today or yesterday, among other absurdities.

I think it's probably pushing pattern it sees in other users. There's videos I'll watch multiple times, music videos are the obvious kind, but for some others I'm just not watching/understanding it the first time and will go back and rewatch later. But I guess youtube has no way to understand which one I'll rewatch and which other I don't want to see ever again, and if my behavior is used as training data for the oth…

A simple "rewatch?" line along the top would make this problem not so brain dead bad, imho. Without it you just think the algorithm is bad (although maybe it is? I don't know).

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#513

Post by ametrau »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #170
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

speculation: they care, they know the people involved, and think highly of them. Larry & Sergey are only humans. They can get bamboozled by people just like anyone. And they are in a situation where the very best bamboozlers are trying to bamboozle them, all the time. The people "failing up" are, in some cases, the Lebron James's of bamboozlement. It's quite strange to see very capable people fall for such types, but…

Pichai must be Grima Wormtongue tier bamboozler

To be fair, he has increased the stock price.

(And created a product and company that is basically universally loathed)

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#514

Post by paradox460 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #105
arromatic wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could at least open source all the stuff on google graveyard which will give us so many awesome softwares . Sadly they are now now sitting on some random hard drives.

Not really. The relevant parts of those programs are basically buildable based on a list of their features. The technology that one would get in an open source situation isn't very usable outside of Google's ecosystem because Google builds software on top of Google's stack. Like, without the monitoring infrastructure they've built or the Borg scaling infrastructure, their software is actually kind of fragile because…

That's not something Google invented, it comes from erlang. Systems in erlang (and other beam langs) are designed to fail and die, and get restarted by the supervisory tree.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#515

Post by etc-hosts »

fuzztester wrote: post #504
delfinom wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine my blocked channels list is stress testing YouTube at this point from the amount of shit Shorts results it's fed me after 2 years. Lol Besides the religious crap, ill randomly get shit in India in hindu, having had not watched anything Indian and not even remotely Indian.

>in hindu Hindi is the word for the language, bro.

I knew I could count on you.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#516

Post by Rapzid »

I could swear Google search got meaningfully worse over the weekend or late last week. I Was using phrases I used before to locate stuff and not finding it. Asking questions in the search which used to return more reddit and blog results; nothing in the search results seem to reflect my question. Also, it was switching to shopping results UI just on its own.

Was driving me insane.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#517

Post by shadowgovt »

paradox460 wrote: post #514
shadowgovt wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The relevant parts of those programs are basically buildable based on a list of their features. The technology that one would get in an open source situation isn't very usable outside of Google's ecosystem because Google builds software on top of Google's stack. Like, without the monitoring infrastructure they've built or the Borg scaling infrastructure, their software is actually kind of fragile because…

That's not something Google invented, it comes from erlang. Systems in erlang (and other beam langs) are designed to fail and die, and get restarted by the supervisory tree.

Good observation. I really need to get around to learning erlang.

It's probably worth mentioning that hypothetically, One could take the source code and port it to third party libraries and kubernetes. But I can't help but think that that would be about as much work as clean rooming it from scratch based on a feature description.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#518

Post by Terr_ »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #266
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies this size die several years before the body hits the floor. They're dead when everyone starts to hate them and someone says "no, look how much money they're making, they're fine." That's the fatal blow, because they think they're fine, and keep doing the things that make everyone hate them. At that point you're just waiting for someone else to offer an alternative. Then people prefer the alternative because…

That sounds a lot like Kodak. I remember running into Kodak engineers, at an event in the 1990s, and they were all complaining about the same thing. They were digital engineers, and they were complaining that film people kept sabotaging their projects. Kodak invented the digital camera. They should have ruled the roost (at least, until the iPhone came out). Instead, they imploded, almost overnight. The film part was…

I'm not a Steve Jobs fan, but one business-quote I do like: "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will."

In other words, it could have been better for Kodak as a whole if they allowed their digital-arm to compete more with their film-arm, so that as the market shifted they'd at least be riding the wave rather than under it.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#519

Post by fragmede »

munificent wrote: post #458
munk-a wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think - I hope, rather - that technically minded people who are advocating for the use of ML understand the short comings and hallucinations... but we need to be frank about the fact that the business layer above us (with a few rare exceptions) absolutely does not understand the limitations of AI and views it as a magic box where they type in "Write me a story about a bunny" and get twelve paragraphs of text out. A…

> I hope, rather - that technically minded people who are advocating for the use of ML understand the short comings and hallucinations. The people I see who are most excited about ML are business types who just see it as a black boxes that makes stock valuation go vroom. The people that deeply love building things, really enjoy the process of making itself, are profoundly sceptical. I look at generative AI as sort of…

We get it, you're skeptical of the current hype bubble. But that's one helluva no true Scotsman you've got going on there. Because a true builder, one that deeply loves building things wouldn't want to use text to create an image. Anyone who does is a business type or an executive producer. A true builder wouldn't think about what they want to do in such nasty thing as words. Creation comes from the soul, which we all know machines, and business people, don't have.

Using English, instead of C, to get a computer to do something doesn't turn you into a beaurocrat any more than using Python or Javascript instead does.

Only a person that truly loves building things, far deeper than you'll ever know, someone that's never programmed in a compiled language, would get that.

Post reply on HN