[dead]
What we lost when search stopped making us think
11–20 of 64 posts
Re: What we lost when search stopped making us think
#12I do worry about Google AI overview's long-term impact, but man, it has been such a great experience of late. It surely does feel like the old google but better. There was a point, perhaps about five years ago, where using Google had become a genuinely frustrating hurdle I needed to overcome to do the actual work. Now the frustration is completely gone.
No way, Google AI search always says you need to see a medical professional or if you say your cat puked it’s like “Cancer” it’s basically as bad as early Google always wrong about everything and over-worrying and over-assuming.
Half the time it just describes some unrelated shit. Maybe it’s interesting but totally sidetracks your search.
IMO it’s like Google 15 years ago where it was causing more panic and disinformation but people knew it back then - we laughed at Google’s persistent and incorrect diagnoses.
Now though, with boomers and young Gen Y and older Gen Z - maybe the dumbest yet most confident people alive it’s causing a lot of harm. Everyone thinks they know everything and because they inherit from their parents and are basically rich society rewards them for being retarded
Re: What we lost when search stopped making us think
#13I was still digesting the throat-clearing intro when my eye noticed "quietly" and "honest" and I decided I'd not bother. But I scrolled through out of politeness, just in case the Basilisk will be very thorough. > I want to be clear that I'm not against these tools generally. I use them myself No essay is made worse by being stripped of filler. If the reader has got this far, this sentence is entirely redundant, I th…
"I am against these tools generally. I use them myself" would be a more interesting take
Re: What we lost when search stopped making us think
#14It is a naive question but I do wonder how hard it is to scrape the web and build web indexes that are shared via bit torrent and self host a tfidf traditional engine using a distributed effort. How big the web really is?
Is there a lot of additional secret sauce that made google work well in its prime?
Re: What we lost when search stopped making us think
#15A fun essay and tickled my brain neurons.
----
Fundamental learning path does not change. Whatever searche result force feeds you it's ok. So long as you have a critical thinking mindset.
People simply read titles, and oh that's what happened.
If you apply the first order thinking, you can spot most of mistakes in docs and results. But then you gotta move onto the second order thinking to see if the conclusion you came up with will be good for the future.
Say, you searched for how to build a house yourself.
You see an AI result that recommends contractors.
But if you break it down why AI recommended the contractor, you can see harness (assumptions) such ass security (the builder/searcher should not be harmed), convinience (how fast do you need) without regards to your personal needs. - that's why comapnies want so much of your info, so they can try to guess better output based on your needs.
Now you breakdown using the 1st principle, you find out that you don't want those assumed AI answer, and you ask more direct question and guide it.
But then after applying the 2nd order principle, you might buy into the AI's recommendation that you don't want to spend too much time building one yourself for the safety (you are a pro athelet, who should not do heavy labor for the sake of the next game match).
Anyways, consider multiple thinking models and views.
Re: What we lost when search stopped making us think
#16> This isn't really anyone's fault in a simple sense
Or, in a more simple sense it’s entirely Google’s fault
Re: What we lost when search stopped making us think
#17AI;DR
Re: What we lost when search stopped making us think
#18I do worry about Google AI overview's long-term impact, but man, it has been such a great experience of late. It surely does feel like the old google but better. There was a point, perhaps about five years ago, where using Google had become a genuinely frustrating hurdle I needed to overcome to do the actual work. Now the frustration is completely gone.
Interesting given this is the polar opposite of my experience. I find Googles AI overview to give wrong answers constantly. Occasionally, even for questions I believe Google circa 2018 was able to answer confidently.
Ironically, Googles AI overview often links to references that state the polar opposite of what the AI overview claims.
Re: What we lost when search stopped making us think
#19I do worry about Google AI overview's long-term impact, but man, it has been such a great experience of late. It surely does feel like the old google but better. There was a point, perhaps about five years ago, where using Google had become a genuinely frustrating hurdle I needed to overcome to do the actual work. Now the frustration is completely gone.
Just this morning I had a worrying result when I googled "UV index " and it confidently told me the current UV index was zero.
It was not, and at least because it was obviously wrong I clicked through to a page with the real UV index.
But had it said "The UV index is 1.7" I might have believed it, but it'd still have been wrong, potentially dangerously so.
Now to be clear, live data is precisely the sort of thing I expect it to get wrong, and I never intended to trigger let alone read an "AI summary", but it's still worrying for those less inclined to dismiss it.
Re: What we lost when search stopped making us think
#20I do worry about Google AI overview's long-term impact, but man, it has been such a great experience of late. It surely does feel like the old google but better. There was a point, perhaps about five years ago, where using Google had become a genuinely frustrating hurdle I needed to overcome to do the actual work. Now the frustration is completely gone.
Just this morning I had a worrying result when I googled "UV index " and it confidently told me the current UV index was zero. It was not, and at least because it was obviously wrong I clicked through to a page with the real UV index. But had it said "The UV index is 1.7" I might have believed it, but it'd still have been wrong, potentially dangerously so. Now to be clear, live data is precisely the sort of thing I e…
[deleted]