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

Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

lajili.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 392 posts

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#311

Post by soiler »

zaroth wrote: post #203
dheera wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also just that Google's search ranking doesn't work anymore. I searched "lowest temperatures in boston every year" and got some shit-looking MySpace-like website with a table of temperatures, hell knows where it got its data, instead of a link to the correct page on NOAA or something more authoritative.

This is a fun example; First hit in DDG for that query is a trash site but at least the data is there… https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/MA/Boston/... Versus trying to pull the data from NOAA; https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search The way that the first site works the keywords into the intro text repeatedly to juice their rank is almost impressive. Can the search engines really not see that the pag…

I mean, what exactly makes the first page garbage? I'm not disagreeing, but "is this site garbage" is not a question that a search engine can ask.

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#312

Post by tmaly »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #22

An endless loop of AI generated content that gets posted to the web as original human generated content, with LLMs getting re-trained on this content and spitting out more content that also gets re-posted, resulting in a cesspool of BS masquerading as organic knowledge. I'm old enough to remember when Google provided meaningful search results rather than just SEO spam, the problem is about to get an order of magnitud…

I am hoping it will be an improvement over the long form blog content people write to rank for SEO.

I don't want to read 10 pages of text for a simple cooking recipe.

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#313

Post by drakenot »

> “Early in the Reticulum-thousands of years ago-it became almost useless because it was cluttered with faulty, obsolete, or downright misleading information,” Sammann said.

> “Crap, you once called it,” I reminded him.

> “Yes-a technical term. So crap filtering became important. Businesses were built around it. Some of those businesses came up with a clever plan to make more money: they poisoned the well. They began to put crap on the Reticulum deliberately, forcing people to use their products to filter that crap back out. They created syndevs whose sole purpose was to spew crap into the Reticulum. But it had to be good crap.”

> “What is good crap?” Arsibalt asked in a politely incredulous tone.

> “Well, bad crap would be an unformatted document consisting of random letters. Good crap would be a beautifully typeset, well-written document that contained a hundred correct, verifiable sentences and one that was subtly false. It’s a lot harder to generate good crap. At first they had to hire humans to churn it out. They mostly did it by taking legitimate documents and inserting errors-swapping one name for another, say. But it didn’t really take off until the military got interested.”

> “As a tactic for planting misinformation in the enemy’s reticules, you mean,” Osa said. “This I know about. You are referring to the Artificial Inanity programs of the mid-First Millennium A.R.”

> “Exactly!” Sammann said. “Artificial Inanity systems of enormous sophistication and power were built for exactly the purpose Fraa Osa has mentioned. In no time at all, the praxis leaked to the commercial sector and spread to the Rampant Orphan Botnet Ecologies. Never mind. The point is that there was a sort of Dark Age on the Reticulum that lasted until my Ita forerunners were able to bring matters in hand.”

-- Anathem, by Neal Stephenson

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#314

Post by ilaksh »

qsort wrote: post #112
akaike wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the point that he/she means AI TV and AI Twitch, not Human TV and Human Twitch, or whatever you want to call it. The point is that the content will be 24/7 AI-generated

I know it's not the same, but the implication is that an influx of effectively unlimited content will change the equation for consumers. I don't think it will: even in the world of human-written books, human-made TV, human-streamed Twitch, content is already effectively infinite, and already almost entirely garbage.

Agree that it's effectively infinite. Strong disagree that is it almost entirely garbage. That opinion is your filter system working and not an objective evaluation.

For starters, you can't evaluate most of it at all because you don't have time to do any significant sampling of any significant portion of it. How many TV episodes, movies, books, YouTube videos, video games, were made in the last twenty years? Do you really think that "garbage" is an accurate description of 99% of them?

I don't thinks that objective. It _might_ be fair to say that 95% are relatively poor quality or not to your taste. But "garbage"?

The thing that's challenging is that to be fair to this content we have to separate our superficial judgement of its quality from our evaluation of it's relevance to us. For practical purposes, we have to find ways to dismiss almost all of it because we do not have a million years to consume content. But that doesn't mean that it's almost all bad content.

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#315

Post by qup »

munificent wrote: post #237
brookst wrote: post #2

Not a super well thought out article. Example: lots of speculative complaints that ChatGPT will lead to an explosion of low quality and biased editorial material, without a single mention of what that problem looks like today (hint: it was already a huge problem before ChatGPT). Ditto with the “ChatGPT gave me wrong info for a query” complaint. Well, how does that compare to traditional search? I’m willing to believe…

> without a single mention of what that problem looks like today (hint: it was already a huge problem before ChatGPT). I see this counter-argument all the time and it makes no sense to me. Yes, the web is already filled with SEO trash. How is that an argument that ChatGPT won't be bad? It's a force multiplier for garbage. The pre-existence of garbage does not at all invalidate the observation that producing more garb…

Because you already only view like 0.0001% of the web's content. Garbage is already filtered by algos. Those algos just have to keep up with chatGPT the same way they've already been keeping up with spam, the 95% of the web that is a dumpster fire, etc.

Potentially it doesn't really become more difficult.

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#316

Post by CamperBob2 »

beezlewax wrote: post #113
throwaway4aday wrote: post #90

Too late, ChatGPT isn't going to be the driving force behind inaccurate content on the web, we were there long ago. Google search is almost useless now for anything outside of "places to eat near me" and the blogosphere died long ago and was replaced by ad-rent-seeking recipe sites. All the value has moved on from web pages to small forum enclaves and video. There is a bright future though in direct real time communi…

Google has gotten progressively worse year in year out. Its promoting farmed content of stackoverflow posts riddled with ads over the actual posts. It's making money that way sure but at the dismay if it's users. This I think opens up the space for more niche search engines that actually work for what you're looking for. I'd take a search based off of only indexing sites I actually care about over the dribble it's pe…

Bring on the competition

And this time, don't be afraid to charge for it.

Because we know what "free" is worth now.

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#317

Post by mh- »

soiler wrote: post #311
zaroth wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fun example; First hit in DDG for that query is a trash site but at least the data is there… https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/MA/Boston/... Versus trying to pull the data from NOAA; https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search The way that the first site works the keywords into the intro text repeatedly to juice their rank is almost impressive. Can the search engines really not see that the pag…

I mean, what exactly makes the first page garbage? I'm not disagreeing, but "is this site garbage" is not a question that a search engine can ask.

I agree. The real "problem" in this specific case is that the authoritative source (NOAA) seemingly doesn't make the data available in a manner that's discoverable by crawlers.

The currentresults.com page seems.. fine? It has a proper source cited at the bottom of the data. I wish it didn't have display ads, but that's the nature of the web nowadays. That's not a problem solvable by a traditional search engine.

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#318

Post by qup »

sorry_outta_gas wrote: post #271
jsemrau wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who judges the quality? one man's trash is another man's treasure .

Exactly, bro. Quality is subjective, so it's up to the owner of the website to determine the quality of their own content based on their own standards and goals.

Disagree, the search engine needs to make the judgement on the quality.

As a user doing the search, I can't trust the opinions of the website owners, but I have to trust someone. I want to trust the search provider, particularly because I can easily switch if I choose.

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#319

Post by freejazz »

labrador wrote: post #212
freejazz wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what's your point? Google doesn't purport to offer legal advice, unlike the AI companies that do but simultaneously disclaim any liability. You can be obtuse if you want, but it's completely disingenuous to compare companies purporting to offer legal advice with a google search.

I'm thinking about Chat GPT in the general sense as a search engine replacement. I have no knowledge of or interest in apps that offer legal advice using Chat GPT as a back end. Seems risky unless you show a lot of disclaimers.

Okay my post was pretty specific...

Re: Chat GPT is the birth of the real Web 3.0, and it's not going to be fun

#320

Post by int_19h »

neffy wrote: post #223
danielvaughn wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have much knowledge around AI, but from what I can tell, it's dependent on inputs from across the web right? If so, then as the use of ChatGPT grows, it'll slowly get consumed back into the model. With enough iterations, it will start to veer more and more away from recognizable human speech/thought, like a recursive game of telephone. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding how ML works, which very well may b…

ChatGPT itself is being trained on curated content, it is clearly not trained on unscreened internet sites - this is easy enough to establish if you ask it questions around hot topic issues in the conspiracy groups - it gets the correct mainstream answer. I suspect we will see the rise of both groups of machines, curated A.I.s and A.I.s just trained on anything, which should be entertaining.

It gives you the correct mainstream answer by default. If you ask it to write, say, a hypothetical 4chan comment about such-and-such subject, and do sufficient prompt engineering to get past the filters, you'll see that it knows full well what the non-mainstream answers are:

https://i.imgur.com/u8Np332.png

The curation, such as it is, appears to be limited to humans downweighing the undesirable answers. Which is why there's always a way to work around it, even though it requires more and more elaborate prompts.

Post reply on HN