671–680 of 961 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> what exactly do I gain by allowing Googlebot to crawl my sites? Site traffic
You’re welcome.
It's no wonder LLMs are the new search, the user experience is much better and you get an answer that is "good enough".
Now any website that doesn't feel hostile requires you to download an app, log in with an account, or sign up for a subscription. Much like how streaming has had repercussions on traditional cable, AI will have repercussions on how we traditionally expect the web to function.
We've taken the open internet for granted.
On a more serious note, the on demand UI chrome could actually be cool UX, curious to try that out.
I see no change to look and feel so far, has this rolled out to anyone yet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web as we know it is over. Websites will die on the vine if LLMs intermediate all the content. The "website" of the future will be an API optimized for LLM crawlers, serving plain-text content that no end-user will ever view directly. The SEO game will change to LLMAO.
Or more likely move towards substack or newsletters where the pitch is - Don’t let the LLM chose the output for you, go directly to our Substack/newsletter instead. This will happen especially with things like conspiracy theories because the choice might be to pollute the output or share the general consensus. Like searches for Apollo landing conspiracy theories can either chose to present “alternate facts” so that p…
Objecting to this from the user end seems a bit like complaining the original Google was trying to be too magic when what you wanted was AltaVista. This has been the inevitable direction the whole time. The real problem here is assuming this takes off what incentives will anyone have to provide the information to feed the beast?
I strongly disagree. Altavista had exactly the same function as google, but with worse results. Both linked to original sources. Early google had a very good idea with pagerank and that payed off. An llm rephrashing / regurgitating other websites is imo different, because you loose the direct connection to the original source. Even if llms give sources they also directly give you a plausible (but unreliable) answer t…
I disagree, Alta Vista had excellent an excellent search UI with Boolean logic. Google discarded that because it thought it 'knew better' in terms of Page Rank.
A-V could be fine-tuned to find a page with exactly the search terms, Google just gave fuzzy approximations from a very large search set.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people aren't going to publish recipes Sure they are. I can attest that musicians will gladly publish their music even when no recompense is offered. Surely culinary artists are the same.
Some people will. The vast majority won’t. You are not playing for an audience, only for crawlers, so what is the point?
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...
The web as we know it is over. Websites will die on the vine if LLMs intermediate all the content. The "website" of the future will be an API optimized for LLM crawlers, serving plain-text content that no end-user will ever view directly. The SEO game will change to LLMAO.
We had internet before we had browsers, then the browser took over as the main method of consuming the internet. It has a lot of problems and e.g. mobile apps are trying to fill the void, but they have their own problems. Next stage is the personal assistant agent, which will be the single entry point to the internet.