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

Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

chuckwnelson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 504 posts

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#141

Post by kotaKat »

binkHN wrote: post #7

> 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…

I just want to be able to turn the stupid overview off. That's all. One simple toggle.

I don't get why a Google Workspaces account can have Gemini forcibly disabled across the entire enterprise yet still have these AI features seep in with no way to manage it at the enterprise level.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#142

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

chimpanzee wrote: post #85
echelon wrote: post #70

Earlier 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…

For whatever it’s worth, in response to the same question posed by me (“what is the ld50 of caffeine”), Google’s AI properly reported it as 150-200 mg/kg. I asked this about 1 minute after you posted your comment. Perhaps it learned of and corrected its mistake in that short span of time, perhaps it reports differently on every occasion, or perhaps it thought you were a rat :)

    The median lethal dose (LD50) of caffeine in humans is estimated to be 150–200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass. However, the lethal dose can vary depending on a person's sensitivity to caffeine, and can be as low as 57 milligrams per kilogram. 

    Route of administration 
    Oral 367.7 mg/kg bw
    Dermal >2000 mg/kg bw
    Inhalation LC50 combined: ca. 4.94 mg/L
ref: https://i.imghippo.com/files/yeKK3113pE.png 13:25EST (by a Kagi shill ftr)

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#143

Post by robrenaud »

ceejayoz wrote: post #83
scarface_74 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been a paying ChatGPT user for awhile. It’s simply a matter of saying “verify that” and it will give you wen citations

Aren’t those citations sometimes entirely made up? Like the lawyers who used it for a case and it cited ones that never happened?

I really do think hallucinated references are a thing of the past. Models will still make things up, but they won't make up references.

ChatGPT with web search does a good job of summarizing content.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#144

Post by JustExAWS »

nicbou wrote: post #119
JustExAWS wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either I’m monetizing my site and I care about traffic or why else would I care if people visit my site as long as information gets out there?

This whole website's raison d'être was to provide neutral and accurate information about German immigration. > as long as information gets out there A possibly incorrect summary of the information gets out there. Given how much nuance I weave into my content, and how much effort I put into getting the phrasing just right, it frustrates me to no end. There's a very high likelihood that AI could give someone an invalid…

And ChatGPT 4o (at least the paid version) and the AI overview in Google both give real time links to sources. Well at least you can ask the paid version of ChatGPT to give you sources and it will do a web search

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#145

Post by smt88 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #84
RF_Savage wrote: post #4

The Yahooification of Googles search becomes more amusing when one considers that it is now led buy the dude who ran Yahoo search to the ground.

Given how Vivek and Elon kicked the hornets nest about this, I wonder if there will be blow-back at Yahoo. A lot of people don't realize that Yahoo basically only survives today off the back of H1b labor.

Every large tech company only survives because of H1b labor.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#146

Post by JustExAWS »

XCabbage wrote: post #114
JustExAWS wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either I’m monetizing my site and I care about traffic or why else would I care if people visit my site as long as information gets out there?

Building a professional reputation? Letting people contact you with feedback and improvement suggestions? Pure personal pride? Plenty of reasons to want your work to be attributed to you regardless of whether you're directly monetising people reading it.

And who is going to find or even care about these websites except for people going to them specifically because of a link to your profile on social media sites, through public talks or otherwise through word of mouth?

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#147

Post by vitaflo »

JustExAWS wrote: post #94
rkagerer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says they need to monetize it? Is that the only value we ascribe to traffic, now?

Either I’m monetizing my site and I care about traffic or why else would I care if people visit my site as long as information gets out there?

I've had numerous people contact me directly with follow up questions about various info I've put on my website. Many of those have turned into further conversations and collaborations.

You can't have that if Google is plagiarizing your site and delivering the info.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#148

Post by jgalt212 »

Arnt wrote: post #133
the_snooze wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the search and ad code base may not be explicitly co-mingled, but they are implicitly co-mingled. And return worse search results than the early 2000s code base.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#149

Post by sroussey »

beejiu wrote: post #117
echelon wrote: post #70

Earlier 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.

> Which is obviously dangerous advice.

Same advice as my trainer gives me.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#150

Post by hombre_fatal »

beejiu wrote: post #117
echelon wrote: post #70

Earlier 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 don't see the problem with the answer, and the question is already garbage. Plus, the LLM hedges its advice with precautions.

I get a pretty good summary when I paste the question into Google. It comes up with a ballpark but also gives precautions and info on how to estimate what caloric restriction makes sense for you within the first 3 sentences.

And all in a format someone is likely to read instead of clicking on some verbose search result that only answers the question if they read a whole article which they aren't going to do.

This seems like really lame nit picking. And I don't think it passes the "compared to what?" test.

Post reply on HN