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

Bard and new AI features in Search

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1000 posts

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#951

Post by jliptzin »

zenkat wrote: post #357
jliptzin wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of cases where you just want to type something in a search box and see a bunch of different options - like shopping. Let’s say you’re in the market for a keyboard. Would you ask ChatGPT what’s the best keyboard on the market right now, and just buy that? I wouldn’t. I want to see a few different options and I‘m not even someone who enjoys shopping. Where there’s a list of options to display, google will have p…

I would definitely ask ChatGPT what the best keyboards are, summarizing their strengths/weaknesses, and then use that as the starting point of my search. Comparison shopping is a major PITA with current sites, clicking back-and-forth between various product pages and review sites, and trying to distill it down to a few relevant choices -- things that ChatGPT's excellent abilities at summarization could really help wi…

I don’t consider it a major PITS, especially compared to physically driving to a store and buying it that way. It’s fun for a lot of people too. If a chat bot is going to recommend a few things, there’s opportunity for google to throw their ads in there. Or maybe they’ll just tax everyone and make advertisers pay a fee to be considered in the training set, then you don’t even know what’s an ad and what’s not.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#952

Post by dan-robertson »

vineyardmike wrote: post #717
dan-robertson wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. How much did it cost to train ChatGPT/GPT3? The only estimate I’ve seen was not enormous in the grand scheme of things (eg more money than I have but less than Google have stuck down the back of the sofa). I think that number didn’t count training precursor models or paying for people to come up with the models/training data/infra. 2. Don’t Google have specialised hardware for training neural networks? If the cost…

1. We don't know the exact cost, but its well into the millions. When Microsoft invested in OpenAI, it did so in the form of ~$500M in azure credits , so they're expecting at least that much in compute spend. Another company estimated that GPT-3 alone cost the equivalent of $4.5M in cloud costs (ignoring OpenAI's other models). 2. Yes. Yes they will/are developing custom silicon that will likely be a significant adva…

Yeah I figured that most of the costs would be from iterating and training many models over time. $4.5m is surely not the kind of spending that will make google nervous or will give OpenAI much of a moat.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#953

Post by nabakin »

ohashi wrote: post #872
nabakin wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you call garbage SEO websites 'content creators'? I think we'll be better off with websites which spread knowledge for the sake of spreading knowledge. Down with ads and low quality copy-paste sites.

So everything being done for free except for Google taking all the profits? Are you kidding me? People need to make a living, creating good content isn't easy. Sure a few folks do it for free, but wholesale trying to kill off everyone who does it by making it financially non-viable is long term idiotic. What are you going to train on once everyone stops writing or letting your scrape their data to train from? Search…

People making a living is great ofc. People making a living off of copy-pasting content and ruining the search experience is clearly not useful and that is the only point I was ever arguing for.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#954

Post by moneywoes »

dmix wrote: post #936
bzbee10 wrote: post #874

Here's a concrete scenario: StackOverflow makes money because people go to it for answers to their questions. The answers are provided by people who write them because they get points for providing good answers, that they use for reputation points to get good jobs. It's an ecosystem. Everybody profits. Now Google scrapes the contents, and provides a service where you just ask your question and it gives the best, most…

> Where does Google gets its information now? The feeder pipeline has died. If people are asking questions and don't get one, then they'll still seek out an answer? I could see a cycle where Q&A sites get eaten by Google but as long as there is demand for fresh answers there will be services that fullfil them. People will still seek out sites to post questions requiring context and domain issues that AI won't ever fu…

> can get 90% of Yelp's resturant info via Google SERP (menus, hours, location, reviews) but I still use Yelp all the time and as a business they are doing fine.

Wasn’t there a law suit around this? Sure you can get more info but how many will go that far?

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#955

Post by vicentwu »

alain94040 wrote: post #388
wiremine wrote: post #232

I agree this is bland corporate speak. But it reminded me of a question that's been floating around: A number of pundits, here on HN and elsewhere, keep referring to these large language models are "google killers." This just doesn't make sense to me. It feels like Google can easily pivot its ad engine to work with the AI-driven chat systems. It can augment answers with links to additional sources of information, be…

Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that people start using those chat bots massively as a replacement for Google search. Then the notion of keyword disappears. Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant. Of course, Google is a giant today with a history of machine learning innovation. So they have a good c…

It's fascinating to think about the future landscape of the search and web.

Some assumptions: 1. Url-based web will not wither away. 2. Asking questions in the chat-like mode is more natural to people. 3. Generated answers cost more when longer. 4. Generated answers are some kind of distilled knowledge and can't be right all the time. 4. People don't like long answers and prefer the concise one. 5. Sources and citations make generated answers more credible. 6. Fully exploring a question needs a lot of information from different views. 7. Generated answers

some simple thoughts: The search behavior would hugely be two main steps: 1.getting some concise answers from the AI model directly through a chat, which might be enough for 90% use cases. 2.some more extensive search just like how people are searching today, which might be a kind of niche.

For websites, being cited in the generated answers will be the new kind of SEO things, and it would be a good strategy to producing some newest, deep or long-tail knowledge and information, which leads to a more traditional way of search because AI model doesn't have enough data to generate a good answer.

...

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#956

Post by moneywoes »

zone411 wrote: post #768
acdha wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the opposite of true in my experience: if you run a content-heavy site, Wikipedia is going to be one of your top traffic sources — especially for time on site since the visitors who arrive tend to have a very low bounce rate.

Look at my profile, I own content-heavy sites and have for many years. I can show you logs - Wikipedia does virtually nothing. And the content of my sites has been regurgitated by Wikipedia thousands of times.

Are you concerned about all your data being scraped and getting directed for references by chat bots?

How would that affect your monetization?

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#957

Post by inimino »

ben_w wrote: post #916
pffft8888 wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I define bias as not treating all political and philosophical opinions equally. If one is picked over the others, that is bias. I saw this bias and made many records of it in case of ChatGPT.

By that definition it's not possible to be unbiased, because moral relativity is itself a position.

I think the point is when taking information from some source (like the web) to just represent that source fairly, which is a reasonable expectation of a search engine, for example.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#958

Post by basch »

vicentwu wrote: post #955
alain94040 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that people start using those chat bots massively as a replacement for Google search. Then the notion of keyword disappears. Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant. Of course, Google is a giant today with a history of machine learning innovation. So they have a good c…

It's fascinating to think about the future landscape of the search and web. Some assumptions: 1. Url-based web will not wither away. 2. Asking questions in the chat-like mode is more natural to people. 3. Generated answers cost more when longer. 4. Generated answers are some kind of distilled knowledge and can't be right all the time. 4. People don't like long answers and prefer the concise one. 5. Sources and citati…

>Asking questions in the chat-like mode is more natural to people.

It's not just that it's chat, its the ability to refine. Currently, I search something. It returns garbage. I search something new. What I dont do is tell the search what it did wrong the first time. I might sort of do that with -words, but its a fight every time.

The beauty of these new chat systems is that they have short term memory. Its bein able to work within the parameters and context of the conversation. I dont particularly care if it is "chat like" or has its own syntax, what I want is a short term state.

And at the same time, I want long term state. I want to be able to save instructions as simple commands and retrieve them later. Like if I am searching for product reviews, to only return articles where it is convinced the people actually bought and tried the products, not just assembled a list from an online search.

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#959

Post by aix1 »

cromwellian wrote: post #811
somenameforme wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GLM-130B[1] is something comparable to GPT-3. It's a 130billion parameter model vs GPT-3's 175 billion, and it can comfortably run on current-gen high end consumer level hardware. A system with 4 RTX 3090s ( The proverbial 'some guy on Twitter'[2] got it setup, and broke down the costs, demonstrated some prompts, and what not. The output's pretty terrible, but it's unclear to me whether that's inherent or a result of…

Google currently handles 100,000 queries per second. The costs to run GLM-130B or GPT-3 at this rate would be astonishingly high.

> Google currently handles 100,000 queries per second.

There's a lot of duplication in those queries. If the answers can be cached, a more useful metric would be unique queries per some unit of time (longer than a second).

That said, I don't have the numbers. :)

Re: Bard and new AI features in Search

#960

Post by brookst »

flakeoil wrote: post #865
brookst wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a real person tells you something in person today, how do you know the original source?

You can ask where they heard it from.

Where did you hear about the economic benefits of Georgeism from? Do you appropriately attribute sources if you mention it to someone?

I know all sorts of things, many in great detail and with high confidence, that I would be very challenged to appropriately source and credit the originator/inventor. I suspect most people are similar.

Substitute “memory safety of Rust” or “environmental concerns with lithium batteries” depending on your interests

Post reply on HN