141–150 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember, Google also didn't have ads interspersed with their search results for over 1̶2̶ 2 years
Google was founded in 1998 and you could buy ads on the search results page in 2000. https://googlepress.blogspot.com/2000/10/google-launches-sel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a drunkard might sit behind the wheel, at which point it becomes detrimental to everyone on the road… And there are countless books and movies where the hero has drinks, or routinely swigs some whisky-grade stuff from a flask on his belt to calm his nerves, then drives.
Driving itself kills more people in the us every month than 9/11, yet has been glamourised for a century
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they won’t as long as you are paying $200+/month
Bold to assume they won't try to double-dip and profit from you in more than one way. Cable TV got ads, subscription newspapers got ads (and advertorials). Just because it's not free doesn't mean you aren't the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YET.
It's very possible that they never will, that instead the advertising will be so subtle nobody will be able to detect it. Including phrases similar to what products, brands, and their actual ads use in positive contexts, sentences that don't mention but make you think of products, being just slightly likely to bring a brand up than its competitor, and a tiny bit more critical of it, etc. The goal isn't to have an ad-…
The money situation is what gives me pause with LLMs. The amount of money it's burned on this is giant; those companies will need to make so much money to have any possibility of return. The idea is that we will all spend more money on AI that we spend on phones, and we will spend it on those companies only... I don't know, it just doesn't add up. As a user it's a great free ride though. Maybe there IS such a thing a…
"It has cost a lot of money and therefore they will try very hard to make it back". I don't think it really makes sense. Companies will always try to make the maximum amount of money anyway.
I wish we wouldn't mindlessly repeat these platitudes. Try and falsify your statements before posting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moreover, the bias could be arbitrarily subtle. This is something that really worries me about black box AI systems.
I‘d argue that, at some point, this behavior will surface enough that it gets interesting for government to take a look at it. At least in my country, ads need to be labeled as such - I don’t think this is going to change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m constantly confused why Google wants me to use Gemini so much. Why would they want me to use an AI that doesn’t show ads, isn’t their search, and costs them money to generate the responses? The instant we see ads in LLMs we will stop using them, it will be as abrupt and as annoying as the vuvuzela example because using an LLM is a very intimate interaction. It will feel much more jarring when your intimate chat f…
Google has this pesky problem of carrying almost all their eggs in one basket: The moment their ad business doesn’t work anymore, the behemoth that Google is will come down to its knees. But due to the way the company is structured, they need search to drive users to the ads, and it’s all one big mess of entangled revenue streams that can’t be touched for fear of breaking something. Now if AI turns out to be the next…
Which makes it all the weirder that they seem to be intentionally sabotaging it by nerfing Search into unusability.
> These days, I find that I am using multiple search engines and often resort to using an LLM to help me find content. For a few months, I've been wondering: how long until advertisers get their grubby meathooks into the training data? It's trivial to add prompts encouraging product placement, but I would be completely shocked if the big players don't sell out within a year or two, and start biasing the models themse…
> how long until advertisers get their grubby meathooks into the training data You're so right. it's not an if anymore, but when. and when it does, you wouldn't know what's an ad and what isn't. In recent years i started noticing a correlation between alcohol consumption and movies. I couldn't help but notice how many of the movies I've seen in the past few years promote alcohol and try to correlate it with the good…
> These days, I find that I am using multiple search engines and often resort to using an LLM to help me find content. For a few months, I've been wondering: how long until advertisers get their grubby meathooks into the training data? It's trivial to add prompts encouraging product placement, but I would be completely shocked if the big players don't sell out within a year or two, and start biasing the models themse…
Advertisers and spammers have the highest possible incentive to subvert the system, so they will. Which is only one step worse (or better depending on your view) than letting a mega corp control all the flow of information absolutely.
Welcome to the new toll booth of the internet, now with 50% less access to the source material (WOW!), I hope you have a pleasant stay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google was founded in 1998 and you could buy ads on the search results page in 2000. https://googlepress.blogspot.com/2000/10/google-launches-sel...
It’s crazy on the web when you point out that google or google products used to be much better in the past someone will come out of nowhere to tell you it’s always been that way what is this instinct? anyone that’s over the age of 25 would know
"The rules were you guys weren't going to fact check."
The instinct is about pointing out factual inaccuracies. What they wrote is either correct, or not. If it is not, and someone knows better they can and should point that out.
If you, or some other commenter, have a fuzzy feeling that google is worse than it used to be you are free to write that. You are perfectly entitled to that opinion. But you can't just make up false statements and expect to be unchallenged and unchallengeable on it.