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

The librarian immediately attempts to sell you a vuvuzela

kaveland.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–346 of 346 posts

Re: The librarian immediately attempts to sell you a vuvuzela

#341

Post by BrenBarn »

itzjacki wrote: post #123
BrenBarn wrote: post #51

This is another article that, for me, sort of walks right by the answers without realizing it. As I was reading, I was thinking "does this person really not think AI is going to be flooded with ads soon enough?" Then they asked the LLM that, and it basically said yes, and then the response. . . to go "Hmmm, I wonder if that will happen"? Yes, of course it's going to happen. Imagine if this was 20 years ago wondering…

> They have nothing to do with AI. Not inherently, but I think LLM services (and maybe other AI based stuff) are corruptible in a much more dangerous way than the things our socioeconomic system has corrupted so far. Having companies pay to end up on the top of the search engine pile is one thing, but being able to weave commerciality into what are effectively conversations between vulnerable users and an entity they…

I'm not so sure. We've commercialized medicine, housing, music, you name it. It is that process of corruption that is at issue here. If we had ended it 10 or 20 years ago we wouldn't have AI in the sense we have it now (and that would be a good thing).

Re: The librarian immediately attempts to sell you a vuvuzela

#342

Post by h2zizzle »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #182
h2zizzle wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? Some companies are mission-driven. Some are ran by people with ethical scruples, and/or who will forego short-term profit for long-term brand image. Some (allegedly) have been infiltrated or taken over by bad actors who purposely sabotage the company's profitability. Some are private and simply do as they wish. I wish we wouldn't mindlessly repeat these platitudes. Try and falsify your statements before posting.

Some are or at least start that way, but they exist in a competitive market. In our current regulatory and economic environment, it appears that mission-driven, long-term oriented, ethical companies are typically out-competed by finance-driven, short-term oriented, greedy companies. The article describes the struggle of using a search engine in 2025. Which is to say, using Google in 2025. Search engines benefit great…

Costco.

Anyway, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Companies were told that this was the way to make money, and that they were in fact obligated to operate this way, by an economic school with ulterior motives. Companies began behaving this way, and lobbying to create a regulatory environment conducive to that behavior. However, it's not natural or even optimal. Many companies treat their employees, customers, AND investors well, and it takes a concerted effort by bad actors during a temporary moment of weakness to shift their policies to the "norm" (not because it's more profitable in the long term, but because such companies represent a threat to the others that would rather enrich investors at everyone else's expense).

Suffice it to say, the idea that the inevitable end state of a corporation is a glorified leech is terminally cynical. And also wrong. And the best way to keep it from happening is to recognize the myth as such, because the people who wish to pervert the common mission of business - provide things and help for people - require that others fail to notice their subterfuge.

Re: The librarian immediately attempts to sell you a vuvuzela

#343

Post by cbsmith »

nehal3m wrote: post #28
cbsmith wrote: post #12

Some curious misconceptions here about how the search industry works. There's a very strong financial incentive for ad-powered search engines to keep SEO spam out of search results, because that makes advertisers more willing to pay for search placement. A publicly run search engine would not have those incentives and would be at if anything graver risk of a "tragedy of the commons" type scenario where the engine is…

This reeks of “communism is when capitalism” to me, because: >A publicly run search engine would not have those incentives and would be at if anything graver risk of a "tragedy of the commons" type scenario where the engine is overtaken with spam. But then how come that is exactly what is happening with modern search engines? It’s just always advertising that comes along and fucks up a good thing.

> But then how come that is exactly what is happening with modern search engines?

...because there are systemic forces driving this outcome, and those forces don't much care whether the company is a public service or a privately held one.

Re: The librarian immediately attempts to sell you a vuvuzela

#344

Post by foobarbecue »

Physical libraries are such an excellent way to discover new knowledge. I don't think the internet ever provided as good an experience for browsing reliable information.

So while I know this story is meant to be a old web vs new web analogy, it could also be read as a defense of the literal public library in the face of digitization.

Re: The librarian immediately attempts to sell you a vuvuzela

#345

Post by jay_kyburz »

kulahan wrote: post #340
jay_kyburz wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, I would have thought the reckless cuts of DOGE or willingness of the current US administration to rely on AI for decision making would have driven home exactly why governments can't be trusted to manage nuclear. It's just too dangerous to leave it in the hands of people who don't believe in science, and value money, power, and ideology more than anything else. Its happening now, and there is nothing to stop it…

Nuclear power plants do not achieve the fission rates required for an explosion, and the system failsafes are designed entirely with an absent crew in mind. Not sure why you think it’s somehow smarter or safer to let them control a hundred gigawatts of solar power but not nuclear power.

Hey look. I found this for you.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/06/trump-fires-comm...

"Further, the NRC rejected past attempts to switch to a model based on the "hormesis theory" that Trump seemingly supports—which posits that some radiation exposure can be beneficial. The NRC found there was "insufficient evidence to justify any changes" that could endanger public health, Science reported.

One health researcher at the University of California, Irvine, Stephen Bondy, told Science that his 2023 review on the science of hormesis showed it is "still unsettled." His characterization of the executive order suggests that the NRC embracing that model "clearly places health hazards as of secondary importance relative to economic and business interests.""

Re: The librarian immediately attempts to sell you a vuvuzela

#346

Post by [deleted] »

cbsmith wrote: post #343
nehal3m wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reeks of “communism is when capitalism” to me, because: >A publicly run search engine would not have those incentives and would be at if anything graver risk of a "tragedy of the commons" type scenario where the engine is overtaken with spam. But then how come that is exactly what is happening with modern search engines? It’s just always advertising that comes along and fucks up a good thing.

> But then how come that is exactly what is happening with modern search engines? ...because there are systemic forces driving this outcome, and those forces don't much care whether the company is a public service or a privately held one.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN