Will OpenAI eventually deliver ads along with responses?
“Before getting a response, a word from our sponsors:” type thing?
Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
131–140 of 504 posts
Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Libraries and librarians are starting to seem very relevant again. As are journalistic institutions.
What a relief then that those are all healthy, well-supported organizations with bright futures. It's not a coincidence that the solution to this problem is exactly the organizations that are being systematically undermined and dismantled.
They aren't being undermined and dismantled, they're dying of the same cancer search is, and one they contracted voluntarily: advertising.
Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they very much are two different things. I loath products like Facebook, Messenger, Google Photos, etc. are turning their traditional "search" page/feature into a one-stop AI slop shop. All I want to do is find a specific photo album by name.
They're perfectly capable of implementing all the same search operators as 1990s Yahoo and 2000s Google. It's a solved problem. The issue is that they don't want to. They'd rather be a middleman offering you "useful recommendations" (that they or may not sell to the highest bidder) instead of offering you value.
Are you suggesting that 2000d Google codebase would do a decent job against today's SEO?
Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Journalistic institutions have been requiring so much fact-checking, cross referencing and research lately it's a full time job to get informed. Whenever I read or hear anything from the medias now, I'm now always asking myself "what are their political inclinations? who is owning them ? what do they want me to believe? how much of a blind spot do they got ? how lazy or ignorant they are in that context ? etc." They…
That's not new, it's always been the case.
Newspapers and other media have always had a political slant. But the more respected media have maintained rough factual accuracy because it enhances their impact and so their political slant.
What's happened is that the income of media outlets has declined to the point that most can't get factual accuracy even if they want it.
Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
#135> Does ChatGPT Search have trust? Open AI isn't monetizing its search just yet, but AI has its own issues with hallucinations. Everywhere where SEO people congregate, they talk only about this: how to produce content that will eventually end up in training data for LLMs, so that when you ask about anything remotely connected to a given brand, its products will show up in the response. Ads are bad enough today, but it…
This reminds me of that awesome analysis of all the speech of a diplomat's visit in Asimov's original Foundation book: > Hardin threw himself back in the chair. “You know, that's the most interesting part of the whole business. I admit that I thought his Lordship a most consummate donkey when I first met him – but it turned out that he is an accomplished diplomat and a most clever man. I took the liberty of recording…
What will happen is that when you ask the AI to summarize a book to remove the fluff, it will inject random mentions of how the main character decided to drink a Coke.
Let's go with truly open models! you say. That way we can be sure there are no shoddy behind-the-scenes deal going on between the model provider and some company or government.
But the ads are in the training data, they are part of the fabric of the world. You can't get rid of them except if you do the training yourself, which is a huge amount of work, and maybe impossible (because model providers escape copyright laws, and you can't).
Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm my search returns “between 150 to 200 mg per kilogram”, which is maybe more correct? Also, in what context is this dangerous? To reach dangerous levels one would have to drink well over 100 cups of coffee in a sitting, something remarkably hard to do.
> Also, in what context is this dangerous? To reach dangerous levels one would have to drink well over 100 cups of coffee in a sitting some people use caffeine powder / pills for gym stuff apparently. someone overdosed and died after incorrectly weighing a bunch of powder. doubt it is a big leap to someone dying because they were told the wrong limits by google. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60570470 as ever, m…
> some people use caffeine powder / pills for gym stuff apparently.
At 200mg per pill, which is the strongest I had, I'd still have to down some 70+ pills in one go. Not strictly impossible, but not something you could possibly do by accident, and even for the purpose of early check-out, it wouldn't be my first choice.
Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
#137> Enter 2024 with AI. The top 20% of search results are a wall of text from AI... I'll be the contrarian here and say I actually like Google's AI Overview? For the first time in a long time, I can search for an answer to a question and, instead of getting annoying ads and SEO-optimized uselessness, I actually get an answer. Google is finally useful again. That said, once Google screws with this and starts making sear…
It's wrong enough and unsourced enough that it's more cognitive load to vet the result than not having it.
Google is barely more useful because of this.
Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get very wrong and dangerous answers from AI frequently. I just searched "what's the ld50 of caffeine" and it says: > 367.7 mg/kg bw This is the ld50 of rats from this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27461039/ This is higher than the ld50 estimated for humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeinism > The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150–200 milli…
Perhaps a more common question: "How many calories do men need to lose weight?" Google AI responded: "To lose weight, men typically need to reduce their daily calorie intake by 1,500 - 1,800 calories" Which is obviously dangerous advice. IMO Google AI overviews should not show up for anything (a) medical or (b) numerical. LLMs just aren't safe enough yet.
I think even when the answer is "right" in some sense, it should probably come within the context of a bunch of caveats, explanations, etc.
But maybe I'm just weird. Oftentimes when my wife or kids ask me a question, I take a deep breath and start to say something like "I know what you're asking, but there's not a simple or straightforward answer; it's important to first understand ____ or define ____..." by which time they get frustrated with me.
Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
#139I think I’ve had such a bad experience with openAIs charGPT answering a question falsely and sounding very convincing that I skip the AI overview or double check to confirm it’s correct. Am I mad?
Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s
#140> Enter 2024 with AI. The top 20% of search results are a wall of text from AI... I'll be the contrarian here and say I actually like Google's AI Overview? For the first time in a long time, I can search for an answer to a question and, instead of getting annoying ads and SEO-optimized uselessness, I actually get an answer. Google is finally useful again. That said, once Google screws with this and starts making sear…
The AI answers are nowhere near good enough to always be at the top, without any clear indication that they are just a rough guess. Especially for critical things like visa requirements or medical information. When you search Google for these sort of things, you want the link to the authoritative source, not a best guess. It’s very different for queries like say “movies like blade runner”.
It seems damning enough that Google itself doesn't know what is a more authoritative source or they would have weighted their AI output appropriately.
What does that say about their traditional search results?