91–100 of 190 posts
Maybe we will just go back to pay content as it was before the Internet era? Magazines and such
Injecting ads into answers will be the next step for the search market. Reddit is doing it already. And unlike reddit post or comment ads, it may be very difficult to block.
Oh god, this has just made me reflect that we're in the golden age of generative AI - not in technology terms, in user experience terms. We're in the period where the major products are competing against each other before they switch into enshitfication mode. You're certainly right, there's going to be ads in the answers and probably worse. I'm imagining companies paying to introduce ideas as subtle subtexts to milli…
The argument seems flawed to me: by "killing the web", they refer to the example of a company adding SEO'd information to their website to lure in traffic from web searches. However, me personally, I don't want to be lured into some web store when I'm looking for some vaguely related information. Luckily, there's tons of information on the web provided not by commercial entities but by volunteers: wikipedia, forum us…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans already, and increasingly, report getting a good chunk of their news from social media: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-med... Folks who want more traditional journalism will pay for it.
> Folks who want more traditional journalism will pay for it. If that is a tiny minority of people then there won't be a critical mass available to pay real journalists. No journalist can afford to work on long form investigative stories on minimum wage. Even relatively straightforward legwork on a completely local story requires some driving around doing interviews. A whistleblower isn't going to just do a Zoom call…
If Americans don't value traditional journalism enough to pay what it may cost, it will go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I call them a "soup" because AFAIK there's no intent behind them: I'll stop calling them a soup when the part that generates a human-readable response is completely separate from the knowledge/information part; when an untrained program can respond with "I don't know" due to deliberate (/debuggable) mapping of lack of data to a minimal subset of language rules and words that are encoded in the program, rather than ha…
Those are called Agents and already exists today. I've been prompted for more information when the agent realized it didn't have all the context it needs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans already, and increasingly, report getting a good chunk of their news from social media: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-med... Folks who want more traditional journalism will pay for it.
Social media doesn’t provide news. It provides regurgitation of actual news by journalists (who need to eat) and a lot of hot takes and commentary on the actual news by journalists. Take away the journalism and you’re left with Reddit hot air.
Journalism and news compete with entertainment.
Everyone needs to eat. Lots of jobs have gone away and lots have been created. Just because industries shrink doesn't mean they should be bailed out or supported.
The argument seems flawed to me: by "killing the web", they refer to the example of a company adding SEO'd information to their website to lure in traffic from web searches. However, me personally, I don't want to be lured into some web store when I'm looking for some vaguely related information. Luckily, there's tons of information on the web provided not by commercial entities but by volunteers: wikipedia, forum us…
> Luckily, there's tons of information on the web provided not by commercial entities but by volunteers The question is: is there content which is useful, but not provided by volunteers? We see more and more content behind paywalls, and it is a loss for many people who can't pay, because they won't be able to access the same content for free supported by ads. So the result is poor people are going to lose access to c…
> many people who can't pay
Everybody is already paying for Spotify and for Netflix. They can pay for mass syndication of textual content. But it needs to be like Spotify or YouTube, where everything and anything goes. Poor people always had access to read newspapers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are called Agents and already exists today. I've been prompted for more information when the agent realized it didn't have all the context it needs
Don't agents still depend on LLMs to produce a human-readable response, rather than as a source of information/knowledge? And aren't they still vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, due to being unable to separate the information/knowledge part vs the prompt, because their prompt "parsing" is coupled to an LLM?
My personal experience has led me to increase my monthly spend, because the ROI is there, the UX is much improved
Hallucinations will never go away, but I put them in the same category as clicking search results to outdated or completely wrong blog posts. There's a back button
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't agents still depend on LLMs to produce a human-readable response, rather than as a source of information/knowledge? And aren't they still vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, due to being unable to separate the information/knowledge part vs the prompt, because their prompt "parsing" is coupled to an LLM?
If you give them a fair and reasonable go, you'll discover more than asking leading questions on HN. In example, there are many things you are unaware of as possibilities, like how easy it is to undo code changes to the last checkpoint (copilots chat checkpoint, not git or vcs). They can also make use of all the external tools, knowledge repositories, and search engines we use. My personal experience has led me to in…