Nilay Patel has been talking about "Google Zero" - the moment when Google effectively stops sending any traffic to other sites - for a few years now: https://www.theverge.com/24167865/google-zero-search-crash-h...
[deleted]
Google changes its search box
421–430 of 961 posts
Re: Google changes its search box
#422Nilay Patel has been talking about "Google Zero" - the moment when Google effectively stops sending any traffic to other sites - for a few years now: https://www.theverge.com/24167865/google-zero-search-crash-h...
Which as some running a website raises a fascinating question. If Google is just going to crawl my sites and present information as an AI summary on their site, then what exactly do I gain by allowing Googlebot to crawl my sites?
Sites pay good money to appear on top search results. Looks like the future is going to be sponsored AI sources. It's going to be even more difficult to figure out if google is presenting you with actual information instead of just an ad
Re: Google changes its search box
#423What scares me about this new AI mode thingy is that every answer sounds like a systematic literature review, but only for the results. For example, if I look for users feedback about a specific product, it says "People think that..., but also that...; It's important to notice that some people ..." where with 'people' it means just a random comment on a random website just because it thought it was a good contributio…
Oh who cares. We are barely scratching the surface of AI. You all make it sound like it’s been around for 30 years and it sucks. It will only get better. Got to stop throwing up imaginary walls like nothing will improve.
That's fine if we aren't destroying existing products to replace them with AI.
People can already use AI mode in google search if they want. "It'll be better later" is a shit reason to kill one product for it.
Re: Google changes its search box
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me one needs to consider the complexity of the question they are asking before searching it. To stick with your post, consider people asking medical or financial questions. For a wide variety of reasons, many of such questions don't have an answer. In such cases, AI is still going to take a crack at it. AI shouldn't be blamed for "bullshit answers" to such questions. Before using AI, I think people should…
When the default "search" results are AI, it's difficult, if not impossible, to "choose", since Google is pushing the AI so hard.
In watching the demo, I didn't come away with the impression that they were removing search results. Yes, they are pushing AI hard, but users can still opt to use Google in the more traditional way. Unless I misunderstood the demo, it's definitely possible to choose.
Re: Google changes its search box
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm going to an LLM (as with websearch before it), it's usually because I don't know the answer, don't have anyone close to me that knows the answer, and can't pay anyone (or don't know who to pay) for the answer. In other words, my failure rate without the LLM would be 100%.
The problem is that everything you have said renders you unable to determine the validity of the answer provided. Sometimes that is fine, sometimes it is not
It's much easier to determine the truth of an answer than it is to come up with that answer yourself. This is analogous to the P=NP problem or the recognition vs. recall problem: it is much easier to recognize and verify a correct answer than it is to recall or generate it yourself.
I've got a pretty solid algorithm for checking correctness: I ask the LLM for its sources, I try to find 3-5 independent ones (that are not just copying each others' answers), and if they all agree, that's very likely to be the correct answer. Simple math here: if you have 5 sources and they are each 60% likely to be correct, then an LLM choosing at random from them would have a 60% success rate, while someone checking all 5 of them for agreement would have a 1 - (0.4^5) = 99% chance of being correct. It's a good algorithm for doing other things like verifying scientific papers, too: you look for indendent research groups that have all reproduced the same findings.
I did the same thing with ten-blue-links websearch as well, and hope this would be the habit of anyone else too. (Although I know it wasn't, because I worked on Google websearch 15 years ago, on a project to increase the credibility of search results, and we did cafeteria UX studies about "What makes a credible result?" and everybody said "Because it appears as the top result on Google.")
Re: Google changes its search box
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is actually another way that was just hinted at a few days ago demonstrated by the EU courts reaffirming a law from 2019 against Meta, just force google et al to compensate publishers: https://www.epceurope.eu/post/epc-welcomes-landmark-cjeu-rul...
That translates to "Force Google to give money to these specific organizations and newspapers which EU leaders wish to benefit". It won't help any individuals who has made great websites with important and popular information.
[deleted]
Re: Google changes its search box
#427Kind of Google to create a market opening for its competitors like this. I hope Kagi, Bing, and DuckDuckGo are taking notes.
The problem is that the web as we know it (useful, human-curated information that's put out there to help people) is also over. It's been totally overrun with AI slop. Even before AI could be used to create propaganda on a scale that we could only dream about 5 years ago, it's been declining under the weight of SEO sweatshops for a good 10 years. Meanwhile the actually decent content, the individual hobbyists who are…
Curators will become desirable again. The Devil Wears Prada 3.
Re: Google changes its search box
#428To change anything on the home page of google, amazon, etc, must be a hair-raising experience for the people making those changes.
Just the cost alone of adding this much LLM to google homepage ...
They already did the capex. Might as well use it, it's not like it was being utilized otherwise. Must be awkward to see your $10B datacenter sitting at 10% utilization.
Re: Google changes its search box
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on what you ask. It's pretty easy to get wrong information. e.g. search for "how do you make money with options" Google's AI says "When you buy a Call, you are betting the stock price will go up. When you buy a Put, you are betting it will go down." Wrong right off the bat, because it ingested a whole bunch of get-rich-quick bull on the internet. The correct version is that if you buy a call you are betting t…
Is that really categorically wrong , or is it a correct-enough explanation for laypeople looking for a one-sentence answer?
It's wild to me that someone looking for advice on how to do any kind of stock trading would be looking for a once sentence answer.
I hope it at least has real citations to actual websites like, I dunno, fidelity or some other reasonably competent authority that can explain all the details?
It's an answer that's too short for an expert to find useful, and useless to a layperson unless all they want to do is reply to a post on twitter.
I've never searched for a financial question where I did not want to know all the weird details because why would I search for it unless I was considering doing it? Seems like someone who doesn't care about the answer is going to be more an edge case than I am.
Re: Google changes its search box
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on what you ask. It's pretty easy to get wrong information. e.g. search for "how do you make money with options" Google's AI says "When you buy a Call, you are betting the stock price will go up. When you buy a Put, you are betting it will go down." Wrong right off the bat, because it ingested a whole bunch of get-rich-quick bull on the internet. The correct version is that if you buy a call you are betting t…
I tried this search. It gave a write up about buying and selling options, noting that the price of the stock had to move significantly, not just go up or down. It also talked about vertical spreads and iron condors. It touches on delta, theta, and volatility and their impacts, as well as leverage risk and potential uncapped risk. While I agree that AI gets things wrong a lot, and someone should read significantly mor…
And this is yet another problem, it's stochastic. And often it's self-contradicting even within the same response. What else do you expect from a language model which essentially predicts tokens.