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

Google has sent internet into 'spiral of decline', claims DeepMind co-founder

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 390 posts

Re: Google has sent internet into 'spiral of decline', claims DeepMind co-founder

#261

Post by danpalmer »

wzdd wrote: post #116

Not that I disagree, but "I spent 5 years helping Google achieve its market dominance and mindshare, was accused of bullying employees, left quietly a few months later, and am now trashing it in the press as part of the marketing process for my next startup" doesn't have quite the clout it could have.

I met him, he was an investor in my previous company and I gave him a tour of the product. Very cold, a little disinterested, and remarkably un-insightful for someone in his position. Your summary strikes me as fitting my expectations.

Re: Google has sent internet into 'spiral of decline', claims DeepMind co-founder

#262

Post by berkes »

CJefferson wrote: post #151
berkes wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably wasn't clear. I truly meant "impossible to game". If I crawl your site today, encounter article A, and crawl it again in a year and again encounter article A, I am sure that article A is a year old (Well, techcnically, what I am certain of, is that I encountered the exact same article two times a year apart). You cannot game that. Now if another year later I encounter article A' where some content on the p…

Favoring old articles might work, but it would wouldn’t work for any articles written more than 12 hours after SEO types find out it’s an important ranking.

Why not?

It's not as if SEO types have time machines?

Re: Google has sent internet into 'spiral of decline', claims DeepMind co-founder

#263

Post by danpalmer »

berkes wrote: post #139
halflings wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is exactly what search engines do. Yet people find a way to game these "impossible to game" metrics. For example: "age of the article": search engines value recent content => suddenly you start seeing articles published just weeks/months ago reviewing some rather old piece of hardware/content. Either a full repost under a different URL with a different title etc., or just an incremental (probably automated)…

I probably wasn't clear. I truly meant "impossible to game". If I crawl your site today, encounter article A, and crawl it again in a year and again encounter article A, I am sure that article A is a year old (Well, techcnically, what I am certain of, is that I encountered the exact same article two times a year apart). You cannot game that. Now if another year later I encounter article A' where some content on the p…

Some form of this may be possible to rank for old articles, but most searches will want new content. Whether it's actual news, or looking for guidance on something that is up to date with modern requirements, new content is far more valuable than old content in most cases.

Re: Google has sent internet into 'spiral of decline', claims DeepMind co-founder

#264

Post by mark_l_watson »

nologic01 wrote: post #128

> Mr Suleyman said chatbots could “take on Google” by providing more accurate information than internet search. Excuse me for no longer taking any tech influencer promises at face value. More accurately, for taking them at zero value. Tell me first 1) your real business model and 2) how other actors will respond to your business model Enough with the half-truths and dishonesty.

While I find Suleyman‘s ideas interesting (and years ago I worked with one of his Deepmind co-founders) he seems like a statist and a corporatist, through and through. Nothing wrong with that, we all have our ideas and ways of doing business, but I prefer, openness, open source, open LLMs, etc. I decided to not buy Suleyman‘s new book because we have such different world views, even though I find the topic interesting.

Re: Google has sent internet into 'spiral of decline', claims DeepMind co-founder

#265

Post by danpalmer »

Micoloth wrote: post #55
phendrenad2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All hail the paid web. It sure took a long time to get here, from humble beginnings 20+ years ago when salon.com toyed with the idea of charging a micro-fee per article view.

For what it's worth, here's my worry about this: - Micro-fees for the web are a good idea. Because "If you don't pay you are the product", etc. - BUT, they HAVE to be micro-fees. Because of the fact that, EVERYONE uses the internet now. Literally almost all of humanity. To charge 30$ per Month (like ChatGPT does) for such a basic service, would bring an Incomprehensible amount of money in the hands of a few providers…

I'd expect that $30 for ChatGPT is more than most people pay for internet access itself.

Re: Google has sent internet into 'spiral of decline', claims DeepMind co-founder

#268

Post by layer8 »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #241
donatj wrote: post #52

I wrote a not-very-coherent in retrospect article about 12 years ago while working for an SEO firm about how SEO was killing the internet. The basis being companies were creating pages and blog posts specifically to target keywords without actually having coherent things to say on the topic. Moreover people within Google like Matt Cutts seemed to be at the time if not outright encouraging it, at the very least giving…

Do you have a link? Twelve years ago, this wasn't even a thought in the back of my head, and I bet those in the SEO industry never thought Google would let things deteriorate to such an extreme.

That discussion was well underway in 2011. Here’s two random finds (I guess Google search isn’t completely useless yet…):

https://techcrunch.com/2011/01/01/why-we-desperately-need-a-...

https://www.anildash.com/2011/01/03/threes_a_trend_the_decli...

Re: Google has sent internet into 'spiral of decline', claims DeepMind co-founder

#270

Post by mrtksn »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #250
mrtksn wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have to imagine the growth of large language models is only going to amplify this practice dramatically. Funny enough, LLMs are actually for the very first time challenging Google’s utility as a knowledge engine. I see more and more Non-techie people asking ChatGPT about receptors or locations instead of Google. Also, if there’s anything that I need to research and it’s not a general knowledge stuff but something…

Will it last though. How soon until LLMs get gamed as well - probably directly, e.g. looking for a product that can do X, SEOs battle it out to make sure a specific product gets suggested by the LLM. There are many problems with LLMs as knowledge engines, - as mentioned they can be gamed just like Google - they hallucinate, adding another possible source of errors to the results - they kill off the websites they scra…

I guess we can enjoy it as it lasts. Maybe if the LLM business model sticks with the paid subscription, then LLMs being on the user's side would try hard to provide high quality output. I don't think that Google has any incentive to do so, the shittier the organic content the more relevant the paid content as long as the users keep coming.

As for the content providers, maybe they can once again do it without expectations of direct compensation. Maybe a content about Kazakhstan could be created by people who feel patriotic about the country and write about it because they would like foreigners know about their country.

The degradation of quality can be attributed to Google but it's not only Google's part. The content went to the gutter when professionals entered the space and optimised for the business model that puts eyeballs above anything. Lack of such a revenue might actually be therapeutic.

Post reply on HN