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

Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 203 posts

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#121

Post by GenericPoster »

The_Colonel wrote: post #75
tsunamifury wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s summarizing. That is by its very nature a reduction of an article to certain bias elements. It’s not rocket science or some evil magic. Jeeze you’d think HackerNews never used anything that wasn’t a home brew open source libertarian approved product if you believed the comments here.

> some evil magic It can be. Summarizing process can be tweaked very slightly to give more space to certain POVs, make them sound more reliable than others via word choice etc. The subtlety can make it undetectable, yet it can have strong effects when applied on mass scale. I don't know how this will look like, but it is a very powerful technology to sway the public opinion one way or another.

Can you give some examples and point out the subtleties?

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#122

Post by comboy »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #15

Hard pass. I don't want Google, or even a trustworthy neutral party, to decide my view of the world. (Compromised as it may be already.) We're all unique and unpredictable. In a given article, a random sentence or point considered throwaway by most people and algorithms could turn out to be meaningful to me. I've been trained not to even trust the basic facts they pull of out content like movie showtimes or whatever.…

> a random sentence or point considered throwaway by most people and algorithms could turn out to be meaningful to me

This is what I crave for in good articles and books. There's some big insight just thrown in in the middle of the sentence because that pattern is already obvious to the author. It's also what AI-generated content is currently lacking because it sticks to the task at hand (but I believe it will change).

Also, your critique applies just as much to human-generated summaries.

My issue with it is that I don't want my browser to send home what I read and view although I guess that ship has sailed some time ago.

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#123

Post by lionkor »

patrickaljord wrote: post #51
uwerewarned wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is like a trustworthy neutral party except for the trustworthy and neutral bit

for non political issues it should fine, eg to describe an algorithm or other non-controversial tech issues for example.

As long as they dont own a product in that field, yeah.

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#124

Post by [deleted] »

comboy wrote: post #122
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #15

Hard pass. I don't want Google, or even a trustworthy neutral party, to decide my view of the world. (Compromised as it may be already.) We're all unique and unpredictable. In a given article, a random sentence or point considered throwaway by most people and algorithms could turn out to be meaningful to me. I've been trained not to even trust the basic facts they pull of out content like movie showtimes or whatever.…

> a random sentence or point considered throwaway by most people and algorithms could turn out to be meaningful to me This is what I crave for in good articles and books. There's some big insight just thrown in in the middle of the sentence because that pattern is already obvious to the author. It's also what AI-generated content is currently lacking because it sticks to the task at hand (but I believe it will change…

[deleted]

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#125

Post by badwolf »

david422 wrote: post #77
nicbou wrote: post #37

Ironically, articles got pointlessly long because of Google. Everyone stretches their content because long form ranks better. A few hours ago I wanted to know the difference between a typhoon and a hurricane. Here is the answer: they're the same thing, just in a different ocean. I clicked three or four articles and had to read for a few minutes to get to that answer. It's even worse with videos. It takes 10 minutes t…

Yes, I can tell you the difference between a typhoon and hurricane. But first, let me tell you a story about how my grandmother once survived a typhoon ... etc. etc.

I'm just waiting for the shitty recipe sites to start hiding the recipes in the content...

* Rosemary - I remember the first time smelling fresh rosemary, it was the spring of 1989 and I was in my dear aunties kitchen...

* 1 boneless skinless chicken brest - Chicken breasts are a common ingredient in many dishes throughout the world. This hearty chunk of meat contains a high amount of protein and is quite versatile...

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#126

Post by Drakim »

andsoitis wrote: post #57
Drakim wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I try to search up a topic on YouTube, the list of search results eventually STOP showing videos matching my criteria and instead show 10 videos in a row labeled "People also watched" that is unrelated to my search. It's one thing to get recommendations in a place where recommendations are appropriate, and the dangers of the feedback loop you are talking about. It's another thing entirely to actively push it in…

> results eventually STOP showing videos matching my criteria How long is that typical list? How often do you pick the things at the bottom of that list vs the results near the top?

I did a test, searching for a pop song. I got 9 results for that pop song and then the "People also watched" section comes up. After 4 results with a +6 more button, it goes back to my pop song results.

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#127

Post by monsieurgaufre »

px43 wrote: post #89
indymike wrote: post #44

This is where you start to sympathize with the news people in Canada who want google to pay for links. If google just summarizes at scale, interdicts the traffic and revenue, where's the incentive to create content? This is a failure mode for the information economy.

If your only incentive for creating content is harvesting attention and eyeballs, then the internet is better off without your content.

With that way of thinking, you exclude almost every content, ever.

Most people do not produce content to be left unread.

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#128

Post by michaelt »

GreedClarifies wrote: post #107
tsunamifury wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s summarizing. That is by its very nature a reduction of an article to certain bias elements. It’s not rocket science or some evil magic. Jeeze you’d think HackerNews never used anything that wasn’t a home brew open source libertarian approved product if you believed the comments here.

"It’s not rocket science or some evil magic" It sure is. If you had told people in 2019 that a computer program could summarize large topics and write cogent output you would have been placed in the asylum.

There's been an "AutoSummarise" tool in Microsoft Word since 2003 [1]

Whats different these days is people might actually trust the tool enough to use it :)

[1] https://www.officetooltips.com/word_2003/tips/getting_to_the...

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#129

Post by monsieurgaufre »

indymike wrote: post #44

This is where you start to sympathize with the news people in Canada who want google to pay for links. If google just summarizes at scale, interdicts the traffic and revenue, where's the incentive to create content? This is a failure mode for the information economy.

I do agree with you.

Google's behavior in regard to informations reminds me a lot of the "torrent leeches" of the past: siphon everything you can, give nothing back, ..., profit. But at a huge scale with an impact on society far more than "a few more bytes on a personal hard drive".

Re: Learn as you search (and browse) using generative AI

#130

Post by brookst »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #15

Hard pass. I don't want Google, or even a trustworthy neutral party, to decide my view of the world. (Compromised as it may be already.) We're all unique and unpredictable. In a given article, a random sentence or point considered throwaway by most people and algorithms could turn out to be meaningful to me. I've been trained not to even trust the basic facts they pull of out content like movie showtimes or whatever.…

I feel like this is knee-jerk over-generalization.

Having Google summarize a too-long recipe (a problem they created, by the way) into just the simple ingredients and instructions is NOT "deciding your view of the world".

Post reply on HN