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

The most talented person in the world

matt.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 155 posts

Re: The most talented person in the world

#21

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

api wrote: post #3

This kind of spam was already destroying the web before LLMs came along. Now it’s being accelerated by thousands of times. Mainstream web search is probably cooked. Kagi and other niche players might have a chance if the fact that they are not beholden to advertisers lets them introduce features to do things like downrank content with ads. Kagi has “small web” which I think includes this in its weighting. Open social…

> Even those are really having to fight bots though.

We recently released a closed-system, iOS-only app, that has a fairly rudimentary, privacy-first system of user registration. It is currently restricted to the US and Canada.

Each signup request is manually vetted. There is no automatic registration. The app is designed for a specific demographic, and we do our best to ensure that new accounts are real people, that fit the demographic.

This is an iOS-only app (free), restricted to the North American continent, and with no accessible server API. The server is a bespoke server, and has no connections or dependencies that we don't control.

We are flooded with bots, and, most likely, scammers. So far, they have been pretty easy to spot, but that could change.

Re: The most talented person in the world

#22

Post by acscott »

The equation to rank links is a poor substitute for an editor. Editors used to be the gateway of information that was disbursed via newspaper, radio, and TV. They were not without fault. So what is the least faulty filter? (Even your own brain, eyes, and ears are faulty, sorry perfectionists.) You cannot trust video or audio now due to deepfakes. What can you trust as a source of information more than 50%?

There's still information in the noise, you have to become your own editor.

Re: The most talented person in the world

#23

Post by foobarboo »

roughly wrote: post #14

The reason all of this exists - the reason the entire Internet turned into an unusable amalgam of horseshit - is because we built the entire commercial side of the internet off ad revenue. It might be a death spiral at this point - I can’t imagine anyone actually being willing to Pay for whatever the fuck Google or Facebook have become, so there’s nothing left to do but keep inventing new ways to generate bullshit an…

I pay for Kagi and I have to say it's so worth it. Very fast and no more trash result, a lot of customizability, filters, lenses, etc. They even have an incentive to make my searches worth while since I pay a flatrate.

Re: The most talented person in the world

#24

Post by giantg2 »

munificent wrote: post #13
dalemhurley wrote: post #9

Google has an incentive to keep these links going. Google makes money by you continually returning back to Google. If you get the prefect result on your first click, then you move on with your day. If you get junk, then you go back to Google and click the next junk link and repeat. Each time someone visits one of these content farms and returns back to Google, then it is more advertising dollars for Google.

This is a classic argument and appears in many many forms: * "Psychologists don't want to fix your problems because then you'll stop needing therapy every week." * "Dating sites don't actually want you to find a long-term partner because then you'll stop using the site." * "The mechanic's not trying to actually fix your car, just get it running for a few weeks so it breaks down again and you come back." Etc. etc. Any…

It's not necessarily that Google or whoever is doing it on purpose. It might just be that Google gets lazy because rhe money is still coming in. Or the psychiatrist, chiropractor, etc actually believes they are helping you and feel they can continue to be useful (or don't want to turn you lose too early in case of a bad consequence). There's all sorts of unintentional stuff that can still result in a bad outcome that seems predatory.

Re: The most talented person in the world

#25

Post by [deleted] »

dalemhurley wrote: post #9

Google has an incentive to keep these links going. Google makes money by you continually returning back to Google. If you get the prefect result on your first click, then you move on with your day. If you get junk, then you go back to Google and click the next junk link and repeat. Each time someone visits one of these content farms and returns back to Google, then it is more advertising dollars for Google.

[deleted]

Re: The most talented person in the world

#26

Post by caseyy »

roughly wrote: post #14

The reason all of this exists - the reason the entire Internet turned into an unusable amalgam of horseshit - is because we built the entire commercial side of the internet off ad revenue. It might be a death spiral at this point - I can’t imagine anyone actually being willing to Pay for whatever the fuck Google or Facebook have become, so there’s nothing left to do but keep inventing new ways to generate bullshit an…

The internet is the largest and most elaborate monument to marketing we may ever build.

Re: The most talented person in the world

#27

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

> The only future of the internet is, sadly, proof-of-person and proof-of-residence on every public network interaction.

I'm going to be that pedant and point out that the Internet is not the same as the Web, and it's the Web that's sick. The Internet is fine.

It's a distinction that matters because the Internet is expensive things like satellites and undersea cables. It's an investment that's too large to just walk away from, so perhaps its future is our future.

The Web is just a bunch of conventions about how to use the Internet, it's not binding in any way. We can write a different protocol without laying new cable, we can make it less profitable for abusers, and then we can abandon the sick version that we're currently using.

Re: The most talented person in the world

#28

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

munificent wrote: post #13
dalemhurley wrote: post #9

Google has an incentive to keep these links going. Google makes money by you continually returning back to Google. If you get the prefect result on your first click, then you move on with your day. If you get junk, then you go back to Google and click the next junk link and repeat. Each time someone visits one of these content farms and returns back to Google, then it is more advertising dollars for Google.

This is a classic argument and appears in many many forms: * "Psychologists don't want to fix your problems because then you'll stop needing therapy every week." * "Dating sites don't actually want you to find a long-term partner because then you'll stop using the site." * "The mechanic's not trying to actually fix your car, just get it running for a few weeks so it breaks down again and you come back." Etc. etc. Any…

> this old canard comes up.

Your examples 1 & 3: I have personally witnessed those negative outcomes.

Regarding 3, A/C repair shops (drain system first, then discuss pricing) and transmission shops (disassemble first, then discuss pricing) are kind of notorious for it.

And yet there are mechanics and therapists who have earned my unquestioning trust.

I've not used 2. I may have bias.

Re: The most talented person in the world

#29

Post by raymondgh »

yen223 wrote: post #12
raymondgh wrote: post #10

Maybe a social endorsement scheme could be an alternative to an invasive proof system.

If there's a social endorsement scheme that doesn't involve real-world identity, I don't see how you won't end up with a situation where Bot_A is counted as legit, being endorsed by Bot_B...Bot_Z

That kind of verification could be off-protocol. Perhaps a reputation or incentive system could help as well.

Re: The most talented person in the world

#30

Post by frabjoused »

Has anyone built a search engine that uses LLMs to pre-grade every page with metrics such as:

- Commercial bias (content compared to the source, which it learns about)

- Insincere motives

- Bloat (how many words it takes to say how little to penalize SEO bloat)

I would assume that using LLMs, we can get a pretty good idea of what is SEO bloat and who the bad actors are by this point, and just penalize those results.

Post reply on HN