3 ms·

Can we retire "[BLANK] for me, not for thee"? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30972356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30972356

• newswasboring 5y ago
  Why? It's a valid criticism, right?
  • cjsplat 5y ago
    Just call them bleeping hypocrites if that is what you mean. Pseudo biblical language to provide an illusion of authority is stomach turning.
    • dhzhzjsbevs 5y ago
      Speech police complaining about others using techniques to feign authority on things they themselves have no authority over is pretty fucking hypocritical.
    • newswasboring 5y ago
      So what you are saying is, tone choice for me but not for thee
  • tqi 5y ago
    It's closer to whataboutism than a valid criticism. In this particular case doesn't address at all whether AI generated content should be downranked in search results (probably should since it is mostly low quality clickbait, the same way human generated listicle trash is also low quality clickbait). The fact that Google uses AI is irrelevant.
    • Too 5y ago
      Using AI generally isn’t a problem for google. I don’t care if they use it to sort my calendar. The dilemma here is that they use AI to create and put their own auto generated content above search results. Like all those countless examples where someone got a picture of a criminal mashed up with their own Wikipedia page because they happen to have the same family name. [1] Disregarding the shame factor of this, it’s showcasing low quality auto generated content created only to put the google name above others in search results. Same applies to those auto generated opening hours of restaurants etc, which are incorrect all of the time. Again low quality ai content put above others and bypassing page rank. 1. Ex https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27622100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27622100