This is analogous to the Apple Maps launch failure.
Except that Apple competes to make the best smartphone, and an iPhone was still valuable without Apple Maps.
What happens to Google if it stops being able to compete in search?
Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
91–100 of 387 posts
Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
#92Hey Google. Here's a really stupid idea. Knock it off. Your core search result product has gotten increasingly worse and less reliable over at least the last 5 years. YouTube's search results are nearly unusable. I can't imagine almost any external customer is asking for the AI bullshit thing that's just being shovelwared into everything Alphabet product now. I just noticed a couple days ago the gmail iOS app now doe…
Google: Hey geuis, our revenue is record, our stock value is record, our metrics are all at record. The execs making decisions have just paid of millions in stock [1] making them staggeringly rich no matter what happens in the future. We can't hear your over the sound of green bills going BRRRRR.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-executive-pa...
Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am also surprised that training data are not much more curated. Encyclopedias, textbooks, reputable journals, newspapers and magazines make sense. But to throw in social media? Reddit? Seems insane.
The problem is that for some searches and answers Reddit or other social media is fine.
But only if you do a lot of filtering when going through responses. It’s kind of simple to do as a human, we see a ridiculous joke answer or obvious astroturfing and move on, but Reddit is like >99% noise, with people upvoting obviously wrong answer because it’s funny, lots of bot content, constant astroturfing attempts.
Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
#94"Achieving the initial 80 percent is relatively straightforward since it involves approximating a large amount of human data, Marcus said, but the final 20 percent is extremely challenging. In fact, Marcus thinks that last 20 percent might be the hardest thing of all." 100% completely accurate is super-AI-complete. No human can meet that goal either. No, not even you, dear person reading this. You are wrong about som…
I think the biggest difference with human (and the most important one) is that human can tell you "I have no idea, this isn't my field" or "I'm just guessing here" but LLMs will confidently say to super stupid statement.
AI doesn't know what it knows.
if you only score where human provide answer, then human score would be probably in high 90s
Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
#95It's debatable whether Google has truly lost the plot because of the "AI wars", but the moment the statement "Bing returns more sensible results than you" becomes verifiably true, it's... cause for concern? The approach that Google appears to have taken, which is to assume that the top-ranked part of its current search index is a sensible knowledge base, may have been true some years ago, but definitely isn't now: fo…
Oh it gets even better. The public has been hearing about AI this and AI that for over a year, but the existing use cases and deployment was confined to some super special niches like writing or the creative industries and programming.
This is the first nation-scale deployment of the technology, running on Google's biggest and most profitable market in one of the most widely used internet services, and it's a shitshow.
They can try manually fine tuning it, but all of the investors who have been throwing money at AI for the past year are now learning what this tech is like in the day-to-day, beyond just speculations, and it's looking... bad.
Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
#96"Achieving the initial 80 percent is relatively straightforward since it involves approximating a large amount of human data, Marcus said, but the final 20 percent is extremely challenging. In fact, Marcus thinks that last 20 percent might be the hardest thing of all." 100% completely accurate is super-AI-complete. No human can meet that goal either. No, not even you, dear person reading this. You are wrong about som…
Thankfully a billion people are not asking me for answers to things, so it's OK if I am wrong sometimes.
Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't an idea, though. It was a joke someone made on Reddit. If an AI can't tell the difference, it shouldn't be responsible for posting answers as authoritative.
Insane people at Google thought it would be a good idea to let Reddit of all places drive their AI search responses
It is certainly popular here to run your web searches against reddit. Every post about how Google Search sucks ends up with comments on appending "site:reddit.com" to the search terms.
Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
#98Google had the best search engine there is.
Then they enshittified it for short term profit and now they panic instead of reverting course and simply laugh at AI companies.
Madness.
Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best trick the A.I. companies have pulled is getting us to refer to ‘bugs’ as ‘hallucinations.’ It sounds so much more sophisticated.
It’s not a trick to sound sophisticated. Hallucinations are more like a subcategory of bugs. The system is technically correctly generating, structuring, and presenting false information as fact.
Technically everything an LLM does is hallucination that happens to be on a scale between correct and non-correct. But only humans with knowledge can tell the difference, math alone can't. It's not even a bug: it's the defining feature of the technology!
Re: Google scrambles to manually remove weird AI answers in search
#100"Achieving the initial 80 percent is relatively straightforward since it involves approximating a large amount of human data, Marcus said, but the final 20 percent is extremely challenging. In fact, Marcus thinks that last 20 percent might be the hardest thing of all." 100% completely accurate is super-AI-complete. No human can meet that goal either. No, not even you, dear person reading this. You are wrong about som…
100% accuracy should be the goal, but the way to achieve that isn't going to from teaching an AI to construct a definitive sounding answer to 100% of questions. Teaching AI how to respond with "I don't know", and give confidence scores is the path to nearing 100% accuracy.