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

The man who killed Google Search?

wheresyoured.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 939 posts

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#881

Post by mining »

dpkirchner wrote: post #785
mining wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Searching "how to fix a leaky faucet" on Google turned up the page from "This Old House" immediately (top 3 results, top 2 were wikiHow and a YouTube video that seemed OK at a glance). I'm not sure why my personal results are often so much better than posts like this one whenever I do the experiment - maybe it's based on location?

Do you use an ad blocker? I can confirm the results: plumber ads that extend below the fold, followed by one useful article from Home Depot, then a useless "people also ask" blob of links, some videos (likely useful, faucets aren't complex), and another useless "people also" blob. I am in the US, if that matters.

I searched on mobile, so no ad blocker. There were no ads for that query, and all of the content up to maybe the 5th result was an acceptable answer to the query (i.e. on a site that wasn't plastered with ads)

If I search "plumber" the first 3 results are ads.

I'm in Australia.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#882

Post by dandy23 »

ametrau wrote: post #540
dandy23 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kagi is still a good search engine though. Hopefully they continue to improve that part too, even if they do AI stuff.

the quality isn't great. They also have my money though because who else is there?

I have not seen any ossues with results. I have found what I was looking for every time both around tech and general topics.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#883

Post by halo18 »

KetoManx64 wrote: post #841
octopusRex wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a Reverse Google search that will weed out the garbage.

https://kagi.com/ de-prioritizes SEO ad sites and also lets you blacklist sites from your search reaults. Never going back to google after trying it

Doesn't seem to be doing great? The example search I got on their home page was 'best headphones' which pretty immediately surfaces http://www.quietheadphones.com/ - which is openly for sale, and also covered in affiliate links.

A bit farther down the page is a 'best headphones for 2020' article.

And this is the example result set they push on the home page to a potential buyer.

You guys pay for this thing?

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#884

Post by snickerer »

fuzztester wrote: post #855
snickerer wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Android devices I use the app PipePipe to avoid the YouTube ad hell. I recommend it. I also use Firefox for Android, which has Addon support. Ublock Origin works on the phone and disables a a lot of the ad horror.

>PipePipe It feels a bit funny asking this, since we're talking about Google (i.e. YouTube), but did you mean ;) PipeTube? I know there is a PeerTube too.

I don't know PipeTube. I meant PipePipe, which works well for me: https://github.com/InfinityLoop1308/PipePipe

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#885

Post by halo18 »

underdeserver wrote: post #696
barbariangrunge wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Machine learning or not, seo spam sort of killed search. It’s more or less impossible to find real sites by interesting humans these days. Almost all results are Reddit, YouTube, content marketing, or seo spam. And google’s failure here killed the old school blogosphere (medium and substack only slightly count), personal websites, and forums Same is happening to YouTube as well. Feels like it’s nothing but promoters…

I've heard this argument again and again, but I never see any explanation as to why SEO is suddenly in the lead in this cat-and-mouse game. They were trying ever since Google got 90%+ market share. I think it's more likely that Google stopped really caring.

Massive media companies finally caught on and started churning out utter shit because it's wildly profitable.

When the 'trusted websites' caught on and embraced the game, Google was apparently helpless to stop it.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#886

Post by barfbagginus »

resource_waste wrote: post #816
barfbagginus wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to report that this emotion and experience completely disappeared after I ported my business workstation over to Ubuntu budgie. Not only does my computer crash a whopping 80% less, but it also uses 30% less memory on average. The main challenge was that I have to run my CAD software in a Windows VM. Ironically though the solution is more stable than running the CAD software on bare metal! I can definitiv…

I still need to use Teams...

I haven't used it, but teams is on Linux, and might be polished enough for your needs:

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-teams-blog/...

Consider evaluating it in a VM before taking the plunge.

Good luck and Happy Porting!

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#887

Post by barfbagginus »

WA wrote: post #691
barfbagginus wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get information from llms after learning how to prompt them so that they won't hallucinate. Get information from searches by using llms to filter through the crap results. Get information from scientific papers on Google scholar and the arxiv. Get information from textbooks on the library Genesis. Get information from audiobooks on the audiobook Bay. Get information from peers trained in specific domains. Get informa…

> Get information from llms after learning how to prompt them so that they won't hallucinate. That is structurally impossible, because LLMs have no mechanism of knowing which answer is right or wrong. Please provide information how this prompting is supposed to look like.

> This is structurally impossible

False.

The mechanisms include examples/in context learning (ICL), feedback and validation loops/tool using, backtracking/conversation trees/rejection sampling, editorial oversight/managerial correction, document assisted reasoning, and having well defined and well documented high level processes, workflows, and checklists.

So basically the same things you need to do for managing other people while covering your own ass.

You are still very much in the loop, and you never ever use output you don't approve and fact check. But you also give it the references and examples it needs to improve its accuracy, and give it feedback/iterate on problems until they're really solved.

Modern LLMs like GPT4, Claude 3 Opus, and Gemini 1.5 no longer have the cascading hallucination problem. If there is a hallucination/mistake, you can backtrack with a better prompt and eliminate it, or just correct it in context. Then, unlike with GPT 3.5, there's a good chance it'll run with the correction without immediately making further mistakes.

Work with it the way you would work with a junior subordinate who can do good work if you help them, but doesn't realize when they do bad work unless you help them a little more. Ensure that it doesn't matter if they make mistakes, because together you fix them, and they still help you work much faster than you could do it on your own.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#888

Post by barfbagginus »

trogdor wrote: post #798
barfbagginus wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling someone a name is only an ad hominem fallacy if you try to use it as an argument. Here it's just used for style. Since the author has plenty of valid arguments, the name calling - which is not an argument - can be dismissed without weakening the actual argument. In any case, it is not sound reasoning to reject the entirety of an argument just because one of the subclaims is not a valid argument. Doing so is t…

> In this case, it's true that name calling weakens the credibility of the post for a general audience. But I contend that we might not need need to care. It only weakens the credibility of the post for members of the audience who make the fallacy fallacy, and refuse to evaluate the other claims on their own merits. Strong disagree. The intentional usage of fallacious reasoning or histrionic name-calling weakens the…

I argue that insults are only fallacious reasoning if you don't have good reasons to back up the insults.

If someone screws you over, you lay out the reasoning for why you're angry at them and then you insult them. The insults are not the argument. They are the conclusion of the argument.

Once again if you see an insult, conclude someone is being histrionic, and refuse to see their actual sound arguments, then you are making the fallacy fallacy, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

You are also making an ad hominem against the author - arguing against the personal credibility rather than the credibility of the actual argument. That specific kind of ad hominem is called tone policing.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#889

Post by barfbagginus »

stavros wrote: post #720
barfbagginus wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drop your good intentions - towards Google, that is. Work to sabotage and collapse the organization - do that for the good of humanity. Thank you for your work, and good luck getting out without harm or reprisal Hit em hard.

Why would Google's collapse be for the good of humanity? When was a power vacuum ever beneficial? "Build a better search engine for the good of humanity", I can understand. "Kill a search engine for the good of humanity" is a reductive, childish take.

They've already killed it in essence, so that they are hurting billions of humans with it daily. But they can still run it because it creates more revenue in this harmful form than it did in its helpful form. Therefore sabotage against that revenue is justified.

Sabotaging the revenue of Google search will weaken them against honest incumbents. They are currently well funded enough to kill incumbents. That will start to change as they decline, aided by our boycotts and other forms of sabotage. The decline and sabotage of Google is necessary for a better search engine to have the space to succeed.

A power vacuum is often good.

Linux and open source exists in a personal and collective power vacuum that was created by proprietary knowledge and software.

Sometimes power vacuums are colonized by people with good intentions. And it's neither reductive nor immature to help create those opportunities.

I never said that someone shouldn't sabotage Google as well as create a better search engine. I myself am working on llm-driven knowledge retrieval systems, at the same time as advocating for the destruction of Google.

Good luck and do anything in your power that you think will help humanity have good search again.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#890

Post by dpkirchner »

exodust wrote: post #870
dpkirchner wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk is objectively a bad man, though. Remember when he called someone a "pedo guy" because that someone dares to disagree with his proposal for saving trapped people? Inexcusable.

You'll need to do better than "pedo-guy" to quality your statement. What you call "disagree" was actually a public attack from the diver out of nowhere. Musk didn't know him. The guy went to the media and claimed Musk was acting in bad faith by offering a sub to the rescue efforts, and that "Musk can shove his sub up his rear end." It was inexcusable slander out of nowhere. Musk admitted to reacting poorly, apologisi…

I don't think I do. It's the kind of retort I'd expect from a 12 year old who may not know better, but Musk is an adult. Calling someone a pedophile without proof is one of the worst things you can do to a person -- especially when you have a megaphone as large as Musk's.

If you think saying someone's offer of help was made in bad faith is as slanderous as saying someone is a pedophile, we'll never see eye to eye.

Post reply on HN