621–630 of 748 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been looking at it. Ironically, you needed a Google Pixel to run it last I checked, right?
Yup - Google made the best de-googleable phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was not at all surprised, to be honest. ChatGPT took over about 90-95% of my what I would previously resort to Google. Since Microsoft was dealing cards at OpenAI, it was just a matter of time...
90-95% of your searches don't require information more recent than September 2021?
I'm using it to help me with a library integration, for example. I noticed it was recommending deprecated methods. So I copy/pasted the latest source code, asked it to update itself, and voilá.
It's super smart and learns literally in a second. Just drop recent information at it and ask what you need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how you create bubbles.
part of the issue with 'bubbles', as I see it, is that you don't know you're in a bubble. a big huge honking option of "keep me in the bubble" and "show results outside my bubble" would make it a lot more obvious (and manageable) to many people who are oblivious to the notion that they live in an information bubble. won't stop people who only use one source of news, but in a search aspect, it would be useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also on a total sidenote, if you told me 5 years ago that Bing would be a serious threat to Google I would have a laughed. If you had told me 3 months ago that Bing would be a serious threat to Google, I still would have laughed. That's how much impact the ChatGPT integration had for Bing -- overnight.
Google has spent the last 10 years ago making Google worse. They achieved this in large part by making the whole Internet worse [0], but a search engine with results of the quality of Google 10 years ago would be a serious competitor. [0] For example, Google used to have a fairly strictly enforced rule that indexable content had to actually be visible to an unauthenticated user. The current crop of sites that have ap…
Publishers blamed Google for declining revenue since they had to make their content openly accessible and therefore free in order to be visible to users on search. The EU tried to make Facebook and Google pay publishers to account for this. I think allowing paywalled content was a compromise to prevent this legislation from passing.
That being said, I agree with the publishers especially since hypocritically Google and Facebook strictly don't allow scraping of their services and litigate those who do.
Google could easily fix this by putting a symbol or label on paywall-related content so you know not to click it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was not at all surprised, to be honest. ChatGPT took over about 90-95% of my what I would previously resort to Google. Since Microsoft was dealing cards at OpenAI, it was just a matter of time...
I'm very curious what will happen when seo spammers come after chatgpt.
Spammers will, too, and since OpenAI has access to what they're asking and can easily flag their questions, they can feed misleading guidance to spammers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was not at all surprised, to be honest. ChatGPT took over about 90-95% of my what I would previously resort to Google. Since Microsoft was dealing cards at OpenAI, it was just a matter of time...
How do you manage the hallucination problems, or do you not seem to be having them? I’m blown away by the competence of the language model but its willingness to make up facts makes me leary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I try that search string on DuckDuckGo, I see what looks to be pretty decent results, FWIW.
DDG is backed by the bing index
Also, even if it were just a Dr front for Bing, it doesn't change that I got perfectly reasonable results for the search string said to return unusable results from Bing, so
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one thing to say that Sundar hasn't led Google to innovate much in his tenure (I agree there), but to say Google hasn't picked any winners since Google Search? - Gmail (largest email service at 1.5B users) - YouTube (by far the biggest video sharing platform) - Android (most used operating system in the world by number of devices) - Google Maps (maps service with the largest userbase) - YouTube TV - The whole Go…
What I mean by "not picking winners" is that Google admits they can't foresee, for example, the acquisition of YouTube turning into a first-tier social network. Just like they could not foresee Orkut and G+ not becoming successful social networks.
They put minimal effort into their products and prematurely sunset them if they don't perform well enough. Their organization is either so fragmented or toxic that they launch products that are competing against eachother.
It really does seem like there are only morons at the helm. A company with as much resources as Google should not continue to fail so badly. My suspicion is as Jobs said of Apple during his time away, the company is being totally run by the product guys not the engineers.
It makes sense, though. Google search is terrible. Bing isn't great, either. But Bing probably charges less, and if there's no real quality difference between the two, why pay more?
You've got the flow of money inverted... Phone manufacturers don't pay for the right of getting to set a search engine as the default. They expect to be paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might be true in concept, but I don't think it's true in reality. When people search for something online, they want the first result to be whatever they had in mind. If I search for Python, I want the homepage for the programming language. When somebody else searches for Python, they might be looking to learn about the animal. You could argue that we should just ask for exactly what we want, but that puts more…
I can type at 100 words per minute. Typing "programming language" after every search will cost me maybe two seconds per search. The savings are trivial. The costs, however, are not trivial. I have on several occasions spent half an hour trying to make a search engine handle a query that I know worked in the past. And that's when I find what I'm looking for at all. They have optimized the happy path but made failures…
A lot of major UX changes have resulted in immense outrage, so it's not like everyone is fine with the churn. My best guesses on why it's accepted are:
1. Most big tech companies have monopoly power and get away with not caring much about their users. Maintenence work is famously under-rewarded at many companies, incentivizing changes even if they are net negative for users.
2. People get browbeaten about security concerns. Actually useful security updates often get bundled with UX changes.