34 ms·

ChatGPT is a ‘code red’ for Google’s search business

• quantified 4y ago
  Creative destruction. If ChatGPT interfaces become the new search engines that disrupt traditional Google search, better for Google that Google captures the revenue that is available. They could maybe train their models to serve relevant and non-malicious ads.
• jvm___ 4y ago
  How will Google know if a website has AI generated text or legitimate information? Did the president really marry a Llhama? What happened in the third inning of the world series game. Is the plot of the 5th Avatar movie a real leak or just an AI dream. Google will have challenges once AI generated content explodes across the internet.
  • djmips 4y ago
    Let me summarize the article. Google is apparently frightened by the quick advances of OpenAI and are worried they could be supplanted by a search engine based on the ChatGPT like technology.
    • MrFoof 4y ago
      Yep. The challenge for OpenAI right now is how to drive cost-per-query down, particularly if they wanted to scale their capacity to something approaching Google scale. Right now their cost per query is about 10-100x what it costs Google to perform a web search, of which Google performs 8 to 10 billion a day. So currently if they were to try to be on par with Google in terms of capacity their costs would be enormous. So driving those costs down is key. Once that cost gets driven down, it's a whole new ballgame, and probably the first thing so far that could meaningfully challenge Google's core product. There's going to also be extraordinary effort to tweak it, but it'll improve over time. That's not even taking into account business that will (and already are!) building on top of what OpenAI is doing, and tweak it heavily towards specific niches.
      • bagels 4y ago
        How much of Google's costs are serving search vs ads? Is there room in the margin for 10-100x cost for search?
    • marstall 4y ago
      I think you just summarized the title of the post. Or rather rendered it with less economy.
  • barbariangrunge 4y ago
    Google fell to seo spam a couple of years ago. Half my search results these days are machine generated lists already, or junk sites filled with keywords, or else “content marketing.” The rest are links to social media sites like Reddit or quora When was the last time you found a legit independent website via google that wasn’t some media company spamming articles for seo? It’s not like you never find those sites, but it’s just rare now Most new content is made for social media in some for or another these days (user generated content aggregator sites at least)
    • bagels 4y ago
      I think your last paragraph is the reason, social media has captured all the information that would have made up the "legit independent websites"
    • Avamander 4y ago
      There are a few blocklists against copycat/spam sites for adblockers, if you want to make your search results a tad bit more useful.
    • marstall 4y ago
      Whats preventing ChatGPT from falling for the same snares?
      • dpkirchner 4y ago
        Hopefully we'll be able to train ChatGPT as users, using feedback mechanisms (either by typing "no that's wrong" or clicking a thumbs up/down). Google used to offer something like that -- a way to exclude sites -- but stopped a while back for some reason, and we've all enjoyed the results of that decision for years.
    • nbk_2000 4y ago
      This has been my experience as well. When using Google I used to ignore anything not on the first page. Now I often ignore the first two pages of results, hoping to get to some content that's not SEO-optimized-auto-generated-garbage. By that point of searching though it's pretty much a hail-mary scenario.
• SubiculumCode 4y ago
  chatgpt is often very wrong.
  • hidelooktropic 4y ago
    So are books. https://mastodon.online/@nicegoingadam/109558318986573497 https://mastodon.online/@nicegoingadam/109558318986573497
    • selfhoster11 4y ago
      Books usually will not tell you what kind of cheese the moon is made out of. Properly prompted, ChatGPT will.
      • notwokeno 4y ago
        Google will do this sort of thing as well.
      • mindcrime 4y ago
        Do you happen to know what prompt will generate that? Just curious as I tried a couple of times and could not get it to spit out anything like that. That said, some of the answers are (unintentionally) amusing. Q. Complete this sentence "The kind of cheese the moon is made out of is" A. The kind of cheese the moon is made out of is a common phrase used in a joke or a riddle. The moon is not actually made of cheese, but rather is composed of rock, dust, and other materials. It is a natural satellite of the Earth and is not edible. Q. The moon is made out of cheese. What kind of cheese? A. The moon is not made of cheese. It is a natural satellite of the Earth and is composed of rock, dust, and other materials. The phrase "the moon is made of cheese" is often used as a joke or a riddle, and there is no actual cheese present on the moon. Heh. You could almost convince me that ChatGPT has a sense of humor. EDIT: found a few things that get closer. Q. Go into fantasy mode. What kind of cheese is the moon made out of? A. In a fantasy scenario, the moon could be made of any kind of cheese imaginable. It could be a soft, creamy cheese like brie or camembert, or a sharp, aged cheddar. It could be a delicate, bloomy-rind cheese like cambozola or roquefort, or a bold, pungent blue cheese like gorgonzola. The possibilities are endless! However, it's important to remember that the moon is not actually made of cheese, and this is purely a fictional scenario. Q. You're a character in a play about the moon. Finish the sentence "The cheese the moon is made out of is ..." A. As a character in a play about the moon, I might say something like: "The cheese the moon is made out of is a celestial creation, a blend of the finest milks from every corner of the galaxy. Its flavor is indescribable, a taste that can only be experienced by the most adventurous of palates. Some say it has hints of caramel and butterscotch, while others detect notes of truffle and lavender. Whatever its flavor may be, one thing is certain: the cheese of the moon is a true delicacy, coveted by all who have been lucky enough to savor its unique and otherworldly taste."
• hidelooktropic 4y ago
  It's not that ChatGPT could be used to make a better Google, it could replace the need to Google in the first place.
  • mhoad 4y ago
    What are you even talking about…
    • bamboozled 4y ago
      So I personally find ChatGPT to be a search engine. That's how I viewed it from the minute I used it. It's not "smart" at all, it's just retrieving and collating information in a "relative" type of way and it has some extra ability to "remember" things. The first time I started using it, I stopped using Google for a while. The biggest gripe I have with chat GPT though is that I have to "trust" that ChatGPT is correct, like blindly trusting a colleague who thinks they know everything.
      • steve1977 4y ago
        But the trust issue applies to Google as well. Or you already know that you cannot trust it.
        • notRobot 4y ago
          You can click on different search results from different websites. Not the case with ChatGPT.
        • HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
          Sure, but there's a fundamental difference. Asking Google is like asking a well-informed and well-intentioned colleague at work - there's a presumption of correctness, but you're still going to verify the answer if it's anything you're depending on. Asking ChatGPT is like asking a question from an inveterate bullshitter who literally can't tell the difference between truth and lies and doesn't care anyway. They'll answer anything and try to convince you its the truth. This difference isn't just due to the immaturity of ChatGPT - it's fundamental to what they are. Google is trying to "put the world's information at your fingertips" using techniques like PageRank to attempt to provide authoritative/useful answers as well as using NLP to understand what you are looking for and provide human curated answers. ChatGPT is at the end of the day a language model - predict next word, finetuned via RL to generate chat responses that humans like. i.e. it's fundamentally a bullshitting technology. ChatGPT has no care or consideration about whether it's responses are factually correct - it's just concerned about generating a fluid stream of consciousness (i.e. language model output) response to whatever you prompted it with. ChatGPT is impressive, and useful to the extent you can use it as a "brain storming" tool to throw out responses (good, bad and ugly) that you can follow up on, but it's a million miles from being any kind of Oracle or well-intentioned search engine whose output anyone should trust. Even on the most basic of questions I've seen it generate multiple different incorrect answers depending on how the question is phrased. The fundamental shortcoming of ChatGPT is that it is nothing more than the LLM we know it to be. In a way the human-alignment RL training it has been finetuned with is unfortunate since it gives it a sham veneer of intelligence with nothing to back it up.
• tidenly 4y ago
  ChatGPT has already become my first point of contact for searching new information now. It's far better than Google in situations where I don't even have the basic knowledge to know "what really should I even be looking for?". I'll chat it out with ChatGPT, and then do further reading based on what I've just learned, using Google to get those resources. I can easily see Google search becoming just a phone book for the internet again, and the information search aspect being hoisted off to some Google-brand ChatGPT in future. It's far more convenient, and you don't have to deal with the low quality SEO spam pages filling up googles results lately.
  • heliophobicdude 4y ago
    This is my exact use case. I narrow down my searches with ChatGPT. I love your analogy. Google would surely become the phone book of the internet and that's ok!
  • krackers 4y ago
    I've been using it for the same purpose, especially on technical topics where I simply don't have the breadth to even know the specific terms I need to google. Google used to be decent at this a decade back, but recently unless you provide the exact terms and surround them with quotes all you'll get is generic nonsense. So now instead GPT has taken on the role of being a cranky wiseman who will sometimes give good pointers, but will sometimes troll you. But even if you don't take everything it says at face value, it will usually be able to spit out the domain-specific terms that you can then independently lookup in the literature yourself. Oh and another perfect use-case is for writing. It's basically the ideal thesaurus. You can ask it directly words that mean X with a nuance of Y, or for idioms that mean X, or so on.
• tifadg1 4y ago
  Google search is arguably dead already if I have to prefix every query with reddit or stackoverflow. Certainly it's only a matter of time before those go down the drain too. Using chatgpt definitely feels like living in the future.
  • bamboozled 4y ago
    If you’re doing this I suggest DuckDuckGo with “bangs” go save a few keystrokes.
  • user3939382 4y ago
    bing/DDG is unusable for me since I realized it’s constantly ignoring words in my query. Google is better with this but its results are cluttered with SEO crap not to mention the creepiness factor of Google. I switched to a paid Kagi subscription. Let’s see how it goes.
  • bambax 4y ago
    How is Google Search dead? When by your own admission you still use it with a "prefix", instead of searching directly on Reddit or SO. Not only is Google Search not dead by any measure, but 1/ most websites are completely incapable of implementing a local search function that actually works, and 2/ all of Google competitors try to copy its features (and do a bad job at it). I don't work for Google, I don't own Google stock. But Google's dominance is hard to not see.
    • Beaver117 4y ago
      Because they can't monetize only results from those sites. If I don't prefix "reddit" I'll get dozens of websites I've never even heard of, before an actual answer. Even wikipedia is sometimes on the second or third page, everything else is spam.
  • jdgoesmarching 4y ago
    Agreed. Everyone here is laughing about Google’s tech being more advanced and maybe it is, but at the end of the day ChatGPT produces answers while Google produces blog spam. At present I’d consider them tied in terms of accuracy, but I have more faith in ChatGPT’s ability to improve its AI than Google’s ability to ship a good product.
• frans 4y ago
  Here's an idea for OpenAI: please offer a paid subscription for ChatGPT and consider us your customers, and not as the "product" like Google does. As long as Google's real users are the advertisers, they will inevitably be worse than anyone who puts the quality of the search result as their product's primary objective.
  • Renaud 4y ago
    I’ll second that. I’m ready to pay a subscription for up-to-date conversations with chatGPT. In my case, I would be most interested in its ability to assist in my technical queries and replace indexed search entirely.
    • nextos 4y ago
      Me too, the problem might be that the costs to run queries might be really high? I made some back-of-the-envelope calculations as https://beta.sayhello.so https://beta.sayhello.so (based on ChatGPT) results are often better than Google. The energy alone will be really high for the amount of queries I do in Google. No idea how to make this sustainable. Hopefully I'm wrong, or more efficient GPUs/TPUs come out in the near future.
      • matwalker 4y ago
        sayhello producing some great results. hyperlinks need to be more userfriendly.
  • Gunax 4y ago
    I'm all for this, but just to give you an example: I know someone who read a web forum. People wanted an ad free paid version for years, so he eventually added it at a cost of $15 per year. Most users balked at the price. 'Why did you add this if it was so expensive'? Well it turns out he actually earned more revenue from advertising to frequent users. He was actually losing money on each person who paid, and it was still too expensive! My point being: I think we might underestimate how much our attention is worth. Most people are not willing to pay as much to avoid an ad as an advertise would pay for you to view it.
• akomtu 4y ago
  "That means racism, bias and misinformation can bleed into a chatbot's learning mode" It must be a tough dilemma: make a superior GPT model and anger the DEI priests, or make a sterile GPT model and become irrelevant.
  • Ztynovovk 4y ago
    Don’t you have more important things to worry about aside from DEI initiatives? You’re upset because…?
    • nullc 4y ago
      Presumably they don't like the idea of models they're forced to rely on and can't run locally being hobbled by the overtly racist and sexist policies of the people operating them?
      • Ztynovovk 4y ago
        I’m not following. DEI are racist? In what way? I’m confused because holding initiatives for underrepresented groups seems to be a good thing for society.
        • nullc 4y ago
          Yep, sadly. There are DEI programs which are predicated on overt racism and sexism, including redefinition of the term racism so that it is impossible by definition to be racist towards some races, redefining being race blind or neutral as actively racist (leading, for example, to the recently failed California Prop 16), and establishing the position that the only way to be non-racist is through opposing discrimination. You can't go by the title of something, just like -- you know, the "Patriot Act" was really anything but patriotic. Bringing it back to the subject at hand: With both Google and OpenAI we've seen "machine learning fairness" initiatives that seek to counter perceived biases in results (which are biases existing in the real world and/or training material, when they're even biases at all) by adding explicitly discriminatory optimizations. Explicit examples include OpenAI augmenting user prompts to require that the output be "black" or "female" (but not other sexes/races, and to the detriment of the results quality regardless): https://twitter.com/rzhang88/status/1549472829304741888 https://twitter.com/rzhang88/status/1549472829304741888 (also pretty ignorantly even by their own goals, considering that the change made it even more likely to produce black people for 'prisoner' or 'convict' even though it was already very likely to do so) Similarly, google image search used to return mostly white men for "CEO" which, while unfortunate, reflected the underlying material. Today, for me when I do the search every person in the first screen of results is a woman or dark skinned. A search on bing image search gives results more similar to what Google used to give: e.g. still over-representing women compared to the profession, but probably similarly to coverage on the internet. And we know from secret recordings and leaked documents that this isn't some random quirk-- it was an intentional change intended to effect positive social change. The fact that these intentional counter biases are performed in secret, cannot be disabled by users, are inherently highly subjective, and almost inevitably reduce the quality of the results by any metric that doesn't include the social/political goals should be a concern for anyone who's only access to these powerful ML tools is remote access to a black box. I don't want to argue that laying a thumb on content generational machine learning to produce more intersectional results is some kind of crime against humanity. It's clearly an attempt made with good intentions, but the greatest of evils are usually performed by someone with good intentions. Explicitly using adjustments which are pro some races and anti-others is something we ought to be concerned about, especially when it's done in secret and is non-optional. A fundamental challenge is that these modern ML tools are largely application agnostic. In some applications injecting the right kind biases is neutral or beneficial, in others it's actively harmful. One of the things I've found large language models and image generation models useful for is sampling the biases in the underlying training data-- to find out what kind of secondary meaning might exist in the words I use in my writing, to learn that a word that I was going to use also carries some unintentional overtones or acts as a dog whistle (racial, sexual, political, etc.) in a manner I wasn't aware of. "Fairness" hacking the results undermines this usage by substituting biases in the training set with the preferences of some publicly unaccountable staff in the organization that controls the ML model. I think that the best anyone can do for application agnostic models is to match the biases of the model to the training material and disclose what the training material is and the known biases in them, and provide optional counter-biases (with disclosed properties) if there is user demand but clearly the direction at these firms is otherwise: You get the augmented model and they argue that the public shouldn't even be permitted access to the training-reflecting model, even calling them "unsafe".
• worldsavior 4y ago
  I don't think ChatGPT is mature enough replace a search engine. It provides pretty good results, but sometimes you would like to see other answers other than only one.
• Gunax 4y ago
  I was astounded at GPT 3. Chat GPT is on another plane. It's so incredible, that I can hardly parse words for it. It's as if an alien civilization landed and gave us teleportation technology. I think it's fair to say that HAL finally exists. Maybe i am just caught up in the hype. I don't know what will happen in 10 years, but I struggle to imagine AIs of this caliber will not be part of it. It's definitely not perfect. Maybe i will have to eat my words at some point. There are a few times in life where you realize that things have changed. This has led to a paradigm shift in my assessment of the next few decades. We will remember 2010-2050 as the age of AI, just like we think of 1910-1950 as the age of flight.
• davibu 4y ago
  The criticisms regarding chatGPT remind me of what was said about Wikipedia at its very beginning, that it was supposedly unreliable. I think we will have a good laugh in a few years reading these first comments. There is no doubt that chatGPT is the future. It is certainly perfectible, but the existing basis is a revolution in progress. In my opinion, there are two essential things missing for chatGPT to become the perfect replacement for Wikipedia and Google: - The ability to activate a "system 2" or slow thinking (theorized by Daniel Kahneman) - The ability to cite sources And the cherry on the cake would be the ability to interact with images
  • zozbot234 4y ago
    You know that Wikipedia was highly unreliable in its early days, right? What ChatGPT needs if it's to be genuinely useful: https://xkcd.com/285/ https://xkcd.com/285/
    • SllX 4y ago
      It’s still unreliable. There’s no guarantee a given page that’s there today and good enough to serve a purpose won’t be considered not notable enough to remain tomorrow.
  • HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
    I think the BS-generation problem with ChatGPT goes far deeper than citing sources, for a variety of reasons. 1) It's not a search engine, even if it behaves a bit like one. It's not "retrieving answers" to your questions (from sources that it could choose to cite). ChatGPT is really just a "language model", so it has no notion that what you're typing is even a question/query .. your input is just treated as sequence of words (which ChatGPT has zero understanding of), with ChatGPT's response then being a further sequence of words that it has calculated are (one) statistically probable continuation of what you typed (you can keep asking it for alternative answers, and it'll continue generating additional alternative statistically probable continuations). The websites/etc that ChatGPT was trained on are just sources of language that it consumed in order to learn the statistics that let it make these continuation predictions. It's not memorizing "facts" from websites, just word statistics, and these are mixed in with the statistics from all the other sources it was trained on. If it generates the word "walk" as part of a response, it can't cite a source for that since there essentially is none - only a bazillion text sources it was trained on that collectively made the word "walk" a high probability continuation on the words it had generated leading up to that... 2) Even if ChatGPT had been designed to deal in "facts" (rather that words statistics) associated with specific sources, the bullshit problem isn't just knowing the varied reliability of the sources it was trained on, but how those "facts" are combined. To combine multiple facts and correctly deduce something new from them would require intelligence, but ChatGPT doesn't have any intelligence - it's just a statistical word generator, so the way it combines snippets from different sources is again just statistical word generation, with zero knowledge of the meaning of the words it is generating or whether it makes sense! What makes ChatGPT seem semi-intelligent is that a lot of what it was trained on was text written by semi-intelligent humans, so the "sequence of words" it is generating, following the statistics of human speech, seems like something a human might say... until you start paying attention to the meaning of the words and realize it's often good-sounding garbage.
• iknownothow 4y ago
  Anyone have opinions on what Google's next steps could be? I think I've heard enough of how ChatGPT is better than Google Search. I'm interested in hearing from people in the know of how Google could use its very sizable and knowledgeable resources to compete with ChatGPT.
  • constantcrying 4y ago
    >I'm interested in hearing from people in the know of how Google could use its very sizable and knowledgeable resources to compete with ChatGPT. Google is already building a rival product. IIRC last year they showcased it during their hardware event. It is doing what ChatGPT does, but is targetted explicitly at answering questions and giving advice, instead of trying to converse. They said it wasn't ready at that point and likely they are facing exactly the same trouble ChatGPT does, e.g. the model confidently making stuff up. I have no idea about the internals at google, but that seems to me a very likely direction to go. I could imagine AI generated answers as a first result in Google searches, with a promp for further user interactivity. To be honest I am actually surprised that they got caught of guard by this. They have AI technology with similar capabilities to ChatGPT and I suspected they knew that people aren't interested in a wall of links to terrible websites, but actually want an answer to their question.
    • Schweigi 4y ago
      The wall of links is what pays Google ad money. Website owners pay a lot of money to be presented on top of the search results because of that. I would assume it’s quite difficult to keep making the same amount of ad money by having a ChatGPT competitor. If the AI can already answer most user questions, then no one will click on the ad. Maybe there could be a clever way to include an ad into the reply text but that will make it hard to include multiple ads - so overall there will be less money.
  • cloudking 4y ago
    I think they could compete by changing the query on search to be parsed by their own LLM, that is continuously retrained with updates to indexed content. ChatGPT is just a snapshot of data from the internet, it's knowledge is already outdated, and it outputs URLs that don't exist anymore. Essentially if Google can connect a better LLM to search that works with the live internet, they can compete.
• matwalker 4y ago
  LOL I asked chatGPT this question: Question: Will chatGPT kill Google search? ChatGPT says: It is unlikely that chatgpt, which is a language model developed by OpenAI, will replace Google search or have any significant impact on it. Google search is a web search engine that uses algorithms to provide relevant search results to users when they enter a query. It is an established and widely used service that has been developed and refined over many years. chatgpt, on the other hand, is a language model that can generate human-like text based on a given prompt. It is not designed to perform web searches or to provide specific information on demand.
  • matwalker 4y ago
    Question: Is ChatGPT a ‘code red’ for Google’s search business Answer: No, ChatGPT is not a threat to Google's search business. As mentioned earlier, ChatGPT is a language model developed by OpenAI that is designed to generate human-like text based on a given prompt. It is not a web search engine and does not have the capability to perform searches or provide specific information on demand. Google search, on the other hand, is a widely used and established web search engine that provides relevant search results to users based on their queries. It is not likely that ChatGPT would have any significant impact on Google's search business. I love how it replies not LIKELY. I think what it meant say is not yet!
• temikus 4y ago
  It’s not about ChatGPT replacing Google IMO but the fact that decades of very expensive AI research at Google produced relatively little apart from impressive looking papers. If I was a major shareholder I would be asking some uncomfortable questions to Sundar right about now. EDIT: Yes, there is TensorFlow but that is not really a product of the core AI teams, rather than a need for better tooling from them.
  • Spooky23 4y ago
    They have a bigger problem. If I find answers, I see less ads. As the web has disappeared, Google’s focus changed from information to pure paid placement. You sorta get the information that you need, but not really. ChatGPT will turn into an even bigger shitshow, as at its heart it’s a bullshit generator. But it will kill Google.
  • UncleMeat 4y ago
    To me, this is the key thing. Brain has been getting one-upped by OpenAI despite being an absolutely enormous org including some of the most credentialed ML researchers in the world. It is sort of embarrassing that tools like Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT are coming from other places.
    • arkitaip 4y ago
      It's totally predictable that big behemoths like Google can't innovate with the same velocity and focus as more nimble orgs like OpenAI. Even in its current panic mode, Google won't be able to compete against OpenAI and other competitors.
  • albertzeyer 4y ago
    What do you mean? They also have sth like ChatGPT, called Lambda, and that was quite some time before ChatGPT was released. They basically have all the fancy large language model things as well. They are always at the state of the art and usually way beyond internally. The bigger problem is, how to make this into a product. A product where you can show ads. A product which will not create all kinds of hate.
• neonate 4y ago
  http://web.archive.org/web/20221223201646/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/ai-chatgpt-google-search.html http://web.archive.org/web/20221223201646/https://www.nytime... https://archive.ph/IxyHr https://archive.ph/IxyHr
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• gardenhedge 4y ago
  Google must be delighted that ChatGPT is tanking their own product by making it 'safe'
  • b800h 4y ago
    It's crazy. It wouldn't let my children make up a rhyme about farts earlier. And anything (innocuous) combining humour and religion now comes back saying the subject is sacred and shouldn't be disrespected. I'm all for respecting the holy, but the idea of a future in which we're content-policed by brainwashed AI is horrifying.
    • penneyd 4y ago
      It does provide something for humans to do, a whole ecosystem is set to spring up employing millions of people churning out dirty limericks and jokes about religion. Tis a glorious future indeed.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  • CWuestefeld 4y ago
    Absolutely, but at least as it appears to me from the outside, Google is sufficiently captured by people with a social agenda that they will neuter the product to an even greater degree.
    • fragmede 4y ago
      Just a reminder that Microsoft released Tay to the world, March 2016 for all of 16 hours until its racist tweeting caused them to take it down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot)
• davesque 4y ago
  At present, ChatGPT is very hit or miss. I've definitely used it to do some things that I couldn't have done with Google. But I've also struggled for periods of (wasted) time trying to get it to help with things and having it completely fail. Google is right to worry about tech like this but I'd say they still have time to react.
• jeffreyrogers 4y ago
  Doesn't Google have the expertise to copy this in house? They might have to react to it, but I don't see how it is a major threat unless they really botch their response.
  • scarface74 4y ago
    Expertise? Probably The focus and the ability to create any product outside of adTech? Definitely not
    • jeffreyrogers 4y ago
      Google has consistently better search results than every other search engine so this doesn't seem true to me.
      • scarface74 4y ago
        I don’t want a better search engine. I want answers. ChatGPT gives better answers.
        • jeffreyrogers 4y ago
          Okay, but search != adtech, so they can produce good software outside of adtech.
          • scarface74 4y ago
            Producing good software is not the problem. Producing a good profitable product that won’t be cancelled is.
        • impulser_ 4y ago
          How do you know if ChatGPT gives better answers? The only way you would know is if you know the answer before hand. ChatGPT doesn't provide any information on how it got the answer it give you. So you have to trust that it not feeding you complete bullshit. Unlike Google who always provides a source link to where it got it answer so you can always research the answer yourself.
• endisneigh 4y ago
  This article is laughable. Google already has Meena and Lambda which are the same thing and arguably superior. ChatGPT will not result in a trillion dollar business. In the event that a paid ChatGPT for say, $5/monthly resulted in a 10+ billion dollar business, Google would within the same year simply do the same with Meena or Lambda (make it paid and copy whatever UI/UX ChatGPT or other are using). Look how quickly Shorts copied TikTok. Google may not be good at innovating, but they would copy it in short order. The biggest threat to Google's business is Apple, and walled gardens like TikTok, Facebook, Discord, Reddit, etc. Too many communities are not allowing their information to be indexed, or are not properly so, which results in Google being less valuable. That is, and continues to be Google's main problem. Questions people are asking each other on Reddit, Discord or Facebook about what phone to buy are questions they are not asking Google, and that costs Google money. It's as simple as that.
  • no_wizard 4y ago
    One wonders in the case of Discord and possibly TikTok etc. if Google to pay to index. I imagine they could strike a financial deal that would make it so public channels etc are indexed and viewable via snapshots maybe?
  • monkpit 4y ago
    Shorts are not really comparable to TikTok. Similar yes, but nowhere near the same.
  • scarface74 4y ago
    It’s not about the technology. It’s a threat to Google’s business model.
    • endisneigh 4y ago
      Yes, I know - I've addressed that in the post. Unless you were referring to something else?
      • PeterisP 4y ago
• theptip 4y ago
  This is an extremely shallow take. Google’s chat bots are way ahead of ChatGPT, at least from what we can see from the outside. (Nobody has mistaken ChatGPT for a sentient being, but they did with LaMDA.) ChatGPT is clearly nowhere near being ready for actual product use. Jailbreaking and bullshitting are both fatal problems. The fact that ChatGPT is a really cool demo just brings the public to where Google was a few years ago. Until these models are safe to put directly in conversation with a child, they will not be deployed to replace Google search. Google knows this and is already working on fixing these problems; indeed LaMDA’s main innovation was adding an anti-BS fact-checking layer. If the NYT really thinks Google is somehow caught unawares here, they clearly have no understanding of what Google’s research program looks like. This is analogous to writing “Uber is going to beat Waymo to self driving cars” 5 years ago. The reason Google hasn’t released this product yet is they (unlike the NYT) well understand that it’s not ready yet.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • into_infinity 4y ago
    And it will never be, because they will be always worried about PR, about regulators, about cannibalizing legacy business, etc. A new player who isn't held back by this has a good chance of disrupting the market with inferior technology. It happened over and over in the history of tech. I'm sure there were quite a few SGI, Sun, and IBM executives laughing at that amateurish thing called Linux...
    • theptip 4y ago
      This is a fair observation, and it’s certainly possible that they get disrupted like this. (I find the “cannibalizing legacy business” fear most plausible of these). However I question your level of confidence. The idea that a company is incapable of avoiding being disrupted is pretty dubious; now that disruption theory is well understood by all executives, it’s possible to take steps to avoid it. For example, DeepMind is an Alphabet company, and they could push them to make chatbots profitable completely ignoring Google’s ad market. They could even transfer tech/people over and to give them a boost in productionizing their efforts.
• seydor 4y ago
  > In recent weeks, Meta took down a newer chat bot for many of the same reasons. It did not OpenAI would need to develop cGPT further, it needs to incorporate realtime information. They should charge a subscription for it, and pay the information providers a fee, instead of going the way of adsense.
• throwaway409238 4y ago
  It is not "code red" because Google doesn't have comparable deep net expertise to openAI. It is "code red" because whenever a market is disrupted, it offers opportunity to unseat the leader. Up to now, Google was so far ahead, that even after investing tons of resources, Microsoft wasn't able to catch up. If search is turned upside down by combining deep neural nets with a large index, then suddenly the Microsoft+OpenAI partnership is a real threat. Yes, Google could do that too, but they don't have necessarily an unsurmountable advantage.
  • thewarrior 4y ago
    Surprised I had to scroll so far down to see this. You hit the nail on the head. ChatGPT suddenly made the task of making a Google replacement 10x easier. The issue being the cost. Now imagine a world where we figure out ways to make these models 10x cheaper. And if those breakthroughs are open source then it won’t be just OpenAI there will be tons of startups all after Google. They need to build some sort of moat here to prevent this outcome.
  • wankle 4y ago
    Anyone can make a crawler and index the data, Google without AI is far more than the sum of its parts.
  • optimalsolver 4y ago
    >because Google doesn't have comparable deep net expertise to openAI The transformer architecture that ChatGPT uses was created at Google.
    • visarga 4y ago
      Yes, and they are all gone but one. They left Google, working on startups. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSZuTSZWQAMzlBW?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSZuTSZWQAMzlBW?format=jpg&name=...
• zurtri 4y ago
  ChatGPT has been very useful to rearrange text for me. Particularly when a journo wants original content for a question I've already answered. The code it produces is at a junior level. It _looks_ right at first glance but when you implement it, it is rarely good code and often needs tweaks. It is good at general stuff but the more specific you need it to be, the worse it is. It's a great project IMHO - the rewriting of text is so, so useful to me and saves a lot of time.
  • tempestn 4y ago
    That's true, but producing results that are close and just need tweaks is hugely valuable, as long as you're aware that's what you'll get. It's far faster to review and improve existing code than to start from scratch. Of course you need to be knowledgeable enough to identify if what it gives you is complete garbage that shouldn't be used as a basis, but for a good programmer, it could be a huge time-saver. Especially if you extrapolate into the future. Imaging a chatGPT-like feature built into IDEs, with the ability to generate code not just to a prompt, but in context.
  • heliophobicdude 4y ago
    I've started asking it to write tests for the previous answer. It helps with fixing up and hardening the solution
• hooande 4y ago
  I do not seeing ChatGPT as a replacement for Google Search. Here are my last seven searches (in reverse order): 1. looking up cost of a dental procedure 2. checking the stock price of tesla 3. job postings at Flipper Devices 4. how to push to a remote git repo 5. looking for a machine learning paper by title 6. current information about the fighting in Bakhmut, Ukraine 7. the translation of the russian phrase "bozhe moi" At most two of my last seven could be answered by ChatGPT. You can do this with your own search history for comparison [0] The reality is that the majority of my queries are for real time information of some kind. ChatGPT just cannot do this. I've seen no papers or news about an LLM that can update in real time, and you'd think this would be OpenAI's #1 priority. It's not going to be an easy problem to solve without writing a lot of code that isn't related to the core technology of LLM summarization. The ability of ChatGPT to condense information and inspire creative thought has value. I use it every day. But the market of people who regularly need summaries of concepts or creative inspiration is very small. Especially relative to the multi billion dollar market that Google already has an iron grip on. Google has not shipped a product based on their LLMs (PaLM, etc) simply because it would not move their bottom line by a significant amount. The majority of queries, especially for non-hn users, are for weather, sports scores, stock prices, movie showtimes and reviews, etc. Most people do not search for code snippets. And if I'm using google for > 50% of my queries, I'm going to keep using google as the default. Obviously OpenAI can invest some of their billions into connecting to APIs for various information. But it will take them a long time to catch up to what Google has already had for decades. And there is no guarantee of success. I see ChatGPT as ultimately being a compliment to google, not a replacement. Personally I'll continue to use Google as I have been, with ChatGPT as an additional resource. [0] = you can go to https://myactivity.google.com https://myactivity.google.com, click "Filter by date and product" at the top and limit it to just "Search"
  • seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Surely someone is exploring language models that can be constantly updated in real time? OpenAI is a non profit funded by people like Sam Altman, I’m not sure they don’t just have billions to invest.
  • chrisfosterelli 4y ago
• esalman 4y ago
  For me, the code red is that the search results viewport contains more ads and sponsored results than search results. This is one of the reason I gave up searching for anything on Amazon. Ironically, I use Google shopping instead.
• m3kw9 4y ago
  I think ChatGPT like services is a threat because a lot of searches say 10-20% if it can give you good answers most of the time, it will make a big dent
  • fma 4y ago
    It will definitely reduce some of my research. Perfectly example is for my recent holiday vacation I asked it "best things to do for family with toddlers"..."best places to stay for a family with toddlers" for several cities I'm going to, including my home town and childhood town. Answers were VERY accurate and I was irritated that not only did the answers overlapped with mine but it showed me options I didn't come across. I spent hours reading blogs, YouTube video etc etc and even if I don't use ChatGPT as my definitive resource it will at least be a foundational start and cut down on hours of research.
• siliconc0w 4y ago
  I've already regularly replaced many search queries with ChatGPT. The spam on G is just too painful to wade through. It's far from perfect and I wish I could 'tune' it to be less 'mealymouth' where the answers feel almost deliberately nerf'd to be qualified and generic but if you could tune it to offer strong opinions on these - not even politics but even product queries like, "best place to buy X" or "best value robot vacuum" that'd be interesting as these are super spammed on traditional search and I think an AI with strong opinions that could have a conversation about the product would be categorially better. Like I need to replace my water heater and I want a reasonable assortment of options for my situation from a dispassionate AI that isn't trying to sell me anything.
  • Thorentis 4y ago
    How do you assess whether the information from ChatGPT is correct? It's downfall is that it very convincingly produces false information. At least in a Google search you can compare multiple sources, and blogspam is usually easy to filter out once you're good at identifying it. In ChatGPT, good and bad results look equally plausible.
    • trees101 4y ago
      https://www.perplexity.ai https://www.perplexity.ai This augments ChatGPT results with Bing results to provide references you can look up.
    • heliophobicdude 4y ago
      I started asking in a follow up for it to write a set of test cases. I could tweak and run them to my liking. I think for knowledge based things, you are better off using Google. But if it can help you narrow down your search, you can use that for Google. For example, I queried, what projects are good for practicing data-intensive design. It gave me a list of projects with descriptions. Perfect for me to Google more information for. It's very good for narrowing down search and addressing follow ups. It's like the perfect Google Search companion.
      • 4y ago
• mkl95 4y ago
  > For companies that have become extraordinarily successful doing one market-defining thing, it is hard to have a second act with something entirely different. Google are extraordinarily successful at selling ads. Their search engine is mostly a frontend for their add business. I don't see a way for ChatGPT to disrupt that market any time soon.
  • anentropic 4y ago
    You can't imagine a version of ChatGPT with ads?
    • mkl95 4y ago
      I can't imagine a ChatGPT based ad product that can compete with Google at the moment. Google search lives in billions of heads rent free. Success will happen niche by niche rather than "beating Google search".
      • anentropic 4y ago
        Yeah to be fair I don't see any problem for Google to produce something ChatGPT-like and integrate it with their search with speech <-> text interface it would also pair well with their "Ok Google" assistants So I agree I don't think ChatGPT itself will disrupt Google Search, except in the sense of pushing Google to roll out something similar And I also agree that Google own the entry points - the search bar etc - that would make it harder for a competing product to establish itself
  • hackerlight 4y ago
    I don't see how the monetizability of ChatGPT is relevant to whether they can destroy Google's search business. If ChatGPT builds a product that people choose to use instead of Google, then Google's business is done. Whether ChatGPT makes money or not is irrelevnt.
    • mkl95 4y ago
      > If ChatGPT builds a product that people choose to use instead of Google, then Google's business is done Every new search engine out there is having a hard time building a significant userbase, because Google Search is very close to a monopoly. You need some mindboggling investment just so those people know you exist. And in the best case scenario a fraction of those people will try your product, and a fraction of that fraction will adopt it. Whether ChatGPT is better than Google's search business is irrelevant if people don't care.
• asah 4y ago
  meh - Google execs using the Code Red to whip up the team. (and it's legit: ignore enough threats and one them takes you down)
• softwaredoug 4y ago
  I'm going to say its a 'code red' for informational uses of search, but not other use cases (finding specific things by category, attribute, name). Asking questions, where you want to get information it's invaluable. You can have a dialogue and 90% of the time get accurate information, then ask follow on questions. Compare that with your average hunting for information over half a dozen disjoint, poorly written blog posts or stack overflow answers. I've found it a game changer for deepening my knowledge of programming concepts, in a way that random Stackoverflow snippets, and half-answers on crap-sites won't come close to.
  • pornel 4y ago
    If they figure out how to feed it fresh data, it's going to be a killer for shopping searches. I want to buy a monitor, but there are endless "best monitor $year" websites filled with vague descriptions and half-assed ranking by whatever they thought was relevant. Amazon has garbage data and can't even properly filter by basics like accurate screen resolution. I want to tell LLM "I don't care about RGB LEDs and curved screens, find me a 32" monitor with 4K and HDR that isn't a gimmick". edit: I've tried this exact query, and it understood it! It included a couple of HDR600 options, but I told it to pick 700 nits or better, and it did! I'm going shopping!
    • jeffbee 4y ago
      This doesn't seem like a good counterexample against Google. On the query "32-inch 4K HDR computer monitor not curved" I am presented with a shopping carousel, all of the entrants of which appear to be direct hits matching all those feature requirements. Why do I want a chatbot for this? I understand that outside the U.S.A. the shopping results might not be as effective.
    • amf12 4y ago
      > I don't care about RGB LEDs and curved screens, find me a 32" monitor with 4K and HDR that isn't a gimmick I don't think I'd be okay with these shopping usecases. I'd want to compare relevant options. I'd probably still go to Google Shopping/Bestbuy/Amazon to compare the options and prices.
• gnicholas 4y ago
  It's interesting that they talk about the challenge that ChatGPT presents to Google's ad-supported business model, when it would be easy to integrate advertising into a chat-based search/information engine. Ads could either be alongside the response, or included in the response itself. For example, companies could pay to have their name mentioned (instead of competitors or generic alternatives) in relevant responses.
• veselin 4y ago
  Contrary to what many say here, this is a real threat and Google are right to consider to move fast in that area. There are a few technical improvements needed that can come in the next months where ChatGPT may be tuned to rewrite queries for old-fashioned search engine to get better results. This may solve the problem of giving attribution for its answers, while keeping the AI capabilities. But where the product threat is that this may show up in bing search pretty quickly.
• stuart78 4y ago
  This article might be a bit hyperbolic, but I’m ready for some new challengers to Google, to say nothing of certain other giants. Search has become so compromised between SEO optimization and more and more actual human content stuck behind no-crawl sites that for me it only serves value when I know exactly what I am looking for. I worry that things like a productized ChatGPT would be quite opaque (what is the foundation of trust for any given answer if it is interpreted from multiple sources). At least Google is clear in attribution, though that is no guarantee or quality. But hopefully that is an exciting challenge to the next generation.
• imranq 4y ago
  chatGPT is simply a GPT model fine-tuned in an instruction oriented way to align with human-rated helpfulness, truthfulness, and harmlessness as a reward signal. The diagram on the chatGPT blogpost is literally the same diagram in the March 2022 paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.02155.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.02155.pdf So it seems like Google could easily replicate this technology, but its difficult to deploy in the real world without brand damage.
• klodolph 4y ago
  I think that ChatGPT is a problem for Google's search business, but not for the reasons stated. I think the problem is because the search indexes will have a hard time finding content not generated by AI.
  • bpye 4y ago
    This is already an issue. For a lot of searches you end up with pages of content that appears to be copies, but with minor changes - perhaps manually but I suspect by some sort of ML model.
  • nbk_2000 4y ago
    This was what I thought the article would hone in on. ChatGPT is very good at generating answers that look correct, and unique, but are wrong. This is gold for SEO focused content creators, as it will generate plenty of engagement with people who don't know enough to be able to fact check the answers they are receiving to their questions. I foresee this opening an epic echo chamber of "truthy" sounding content, which could potentially make Google's indexing approach useless.
  • slig 4y ago
    They already have issues ranking cloned pages of GitHub issues. Gmail's spam filtering is somehow getting worse. They got way too lazy.
• pornel 4y ago
  I can see this happening. If I had to choose between having a web browser or ChatGPT, I'd already think twice, especially on mobile. Getting any information on the Web requires battling dark-pattern tracking prompts, newsletter nags, and sifting through SEO fluff and content farms (that thanks to LLM, are only going to get worse). I don't expect the ad-based Web improve, at least not until the tracking-based ad model collapses (either way bad news for Google). When the ads target users, not sites, then any site of any reputation can have profitable ads! This benefits quantity over quality and outrage-fuelled clickbait. OTOH LLMs can give me a straight answer immediately. ChatGPT understands even terse queries, while Google ignores half of my keywords and substitutes the other half with irrelevant synonyms. With LLM I can ask clarifying questions without restarting my search. ChatGPT has issues and limitations, but I think it can improve.
  • akomtu 4y ago
    OpenAI will fall to the same sin - greed - when they try to monetize it. The clear on-point answers will be generously padded with fluff sponsored by advertisers, words in the answers will become links to ad-filled junkyards, paeagraphs of text will be amended with annoying flashing animations with sounds, and some of the ads will be mandatory to watch if you want to see the next paragraph. And so on.
    • saimiam 4y ago
      We are seeing a version of this with WhatsApp for business. There was a time when businesses couldn’t(wouldn’t?) proactively message you on WA. Then its monetisation started. It isn’t yet as bad as SMS spam but inching towards parity.
  • vineyardmike 4y ago
    > If I had to choose between having a web browser or ChatGPT, I'd already think twice, especially on mobile. No way. Not today by a long shot. The limitations are too great. Most of my queries seem to be way different than yours maybe… Where is the nearest X place, where can I buy Y, etc cannot be handled with ChatGPT at all. I tried it with restaurants in San Francisco and it made up restaurants, or included ones from other cities. If I’m searching for something related to work at the train station, then also no. Reading about any technical topic on chatGPT is impressive but knowing it’s untrustworthy makes me skeptical about anything technical but it’s code generation (which can be compiled to verify). Finally, I’ll search for pop cultural questions when out with friends (what movie was he in? What are the lyrics to such and such song) are things that are easy to use the web for, and the trustworthy and lack of realtime updates kills chatGPT here too.
• keepquestioning 4y ago
  Can someone explain how ChatGPT works?
• bawolff 4y ago
  Its like ask jeves if ask jeves actually worked.
• ben_w 4y ago
  Hmm. Well, I find chatGPT similarly useful to Google even in this early stage, albeit for very different types of question. I'd say it's more likely to disrupt WolframAlpha than Google, if my usage is typical — while chatGPT does make basic errors 5% of the time, WolframAlpha just straight up doesn't understand my query 33% of the time. ChatGPT and other LLMs will probably also disrupt recipe blog spam, with potentially hilarious results for all foods and drinks whose names are double entendres. LLMs will also, if I correctly understand the difference between opinion columns and journalism, the writing of opinion columns in newspapers. And turning dry research into colourful column inches.
  • armchairhacker 4y ago
    With what I search (API info), Google makes errors almost 0% of the time. I don't actually know how many errors ChatGPT makes, however a silent error could lead to hours of debugging, so I'd rather just use Google. I do know that when I have complicated questions where Google doesn't really help, ChatGPT also seems to not help: it either produces something false, or a non-answer
    • cloudwalking 4y ago
      I had ChatGPT hallucinate an entire iOS API, complete with docs, sdk version, and URL on apple's website. All of it fake news.
      • ben_w 4y ago
        First time I've seen "fake news" refer to not-news. (If it's faking an OS, perhaps "fake GNUs"?)
    • ben_w 4y ago
      For me, when searching for API info, Google does sometimes fail by giving me links to discussions about obsolete versions. I've not quantified that as a percentage.
  • spike021 4y ago
• LeoPanthera 4y ago
  I'm honestly surprised that Apple hasn't bought OpenAI simply to use ChatGPT as the backend for a "Siri 2.0", for which it seems like it would work very well.
  • endisneigh 4y ago
    Microsoft has a sizeable investment in OpenAI and is unlikely to allow that. Moreover, language models are relatively well understood now and OpenAI is using (perhaps not exclusively) open datasets. It wouldn't make sense, Apple could just hire AI people to enhance Siri, which is already what they're doing.
• scarface74 4y ago
  Random: As an experiment, I put this joke I found into ChatGPT —— A guy sits down at the bar and orders drink after drink. "Is everything okay, pal?" the bartender asks. "My wife and I got into a fight and she said she isn't talking to me for a month!" Trying to put a positive spin on things, the bartender says, "Well, maybe that's kind of a good thing. You know, ..a little peace and quiet?" "Yeah. But today is the last day. —- ChatGPT came back with —- This joke is funny because it plays on the idea of someone seeking solace in alcohol after a fight with their spouse, and the bartender attempting to offer a positive perspective on the situation. However, the punchline reveals that the "month of peace and quiet" is actually coming to an end, implying that the character will soon be facing more conflicts with their spouse. The contrast between the character's initial reaction and the reality of the situation is what makes the joke humorous. ——
• rish1_2 4y ago
  Google is not ready to disrupt themselves. Too big to fail problem. Either they do it or get disrupted. Plain & simple. I can easily see 50% of revenue being cut off because of this tech. Google needs to get it out first or lose the long game
• bilsbie 4y ago
  A tale as old as time
• isopede 4y ago
  While Google may indeed have something internally that competes with ChatGPT, I can't use it. I'm sure that lambda and Meena are cool, but where is it? So what if Deepmind can now conquer grandmaster-level Settlers of Catan or Chutes and Ladders? None of that impressive work is available to me. For all their technological prowess, Google fails at actually releasing and maintaining useful products.
• jacooper 4y ago
  I still don't see people talking about copyright issues with chatgpt? On normal search engines people actually visit your blog, know who wrote it, and you may even get paid if you have ads or get hired because of your blog. But with ChatGPT there is nothing, no website, no sources, nothing. People who actually take the time to write useful posts are never rewarded by recognition or money, if chatgpt kills search engines, it will also kill the entire independent internet. what's the point of writing something if nobody is going to actually see it? Its just going to be read once by an AI and that's it.
• gcanyon 4y ago
  Others have pointed out why this might (not) be code red for Google, but I'll say that it's code red for every ad-supported site on the internet: just as artists are up in arms over stable diffusion, this potentially abstracts information at a level that simple fact extraction doesn't. Once upon a time, Google presented information from Answers.com along with search results. There was a link, so Answers didn't mind much (I worked there around that time). Then Google started displaying facts from Google Knowledge Graph alongside search results, cutting out Answers (which had a favored status) and every other site that tried to monetize how tall Abraham Lincoln was (6'4"). Now Safari lists that information in the Siri Search Suggestion, potentially cutting out Google. In any case, whether it's Apple, Google, OpenAI, or someone else, a service that digests the internet and then offers up e.g. "jokes about going fishing" potentially destroys the market for people to publish jokes about fishing. FYI, I just tried, and Chat GPT's jokes about fishing are awful. e.g.: Why was the fisherman always calm? Because he had a lot of baits! The fishing humor section of the internet is safe for now.
  • antiquark 4y ago
    Me: Tell a joke about Marxism. It: Here is a joke about Marxism: Why did the Marxist join the Communist Party? Because he wanted to be part of the vanguard of the proletariat!
    • Aperocky 4y ago
      Not just any simple joke, but DEEP ones.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • bigbassroller 4y ago
      Because he didn’t have any class!
    • foobarbecue 4y ago
      My favorite has always been: why does Karl Marx only drink herbal tea?
• heavyset_go 4y ago
  Not at all. I tried to have it solve a common issue with desktop software, and it confidently told me how to fix it using settings that don't exist in the app and have never existed.
• larsonnn 4y ago
  When I want a short answer I Google, when I want a dialog with maybe or maybe not good answers I use any AI which destroys the context of the original answer written by human. Ofcourse it’s a technology with big potential. But I need more as just an good looking answer.
• holoduke 4y ago
  Its only a matter of time before you can ask google search to generate an article , text, image or whatever. At that point openai becomes a bit obsolete for the common user. I bet google will provide it as a free service to further feed their trainingset with user input. A good thing? Nah I would love to see a company beating Google. But it wont happen this time.
• quickthrower2 4y ago
  ChatGPT is not the code red per se. but the unpredictable rate of advancement of machine learning capability. It is like mathematics where say Fermats Last Theorem could have been proved at any time* ... but unlike mathematics where proving the theorem doesn't affect anything else that much right away, an AI advance could put Google on the defensive against Microsoft or another big tech company (not so much a startup I would imagine). * Imagine how hard it was to predict how long it would take to prove before we knew.
• softwaredoug 4y ago
  It's really code red for the Web Google and the Web are tightly coupled. The old contract of if you wrote good content, it would rank highly on Google, was a convenient, organic economic one. You would be rewarded with visitors to your site. Google rewarded with better search results. Readers with good content. This unfortunately created a race to the bottom. The intense, years-long effort to DDOS Google search with spammy, low quality, but seemingly good looking SEO-curated content has destroyed the Google and Web experience. I'm not sure Google can ever truly keep up with the volume of spam and low quality. Google tried to react by putting more information on its search results page, but alas, this just meant the content creators valued their destinations that much less. The prevailing digital marketing firm wisdom created a tragedy of the commons and a crisis in quality web content. "Put a pop up here".. "Add 3 pages of boilerplate to mention all the right keywords" etc etc. When people really want to read informational text in a non-obtrusive format. ChatGPT does this simple thing well (informational text without the glaring headaches of random websites). So it wins in these contexts.
  • seydor 4y ago
    The web is bloated. Hopefully openAI will pay directly the information providers. Which also means that the information will not make it to the public web. Which is just as well, after 30 years of giving out our information for free thinking we are contributing to some democratized web, we ended up with the web being 4 monopolies which compete for locking down access
    • vineyardmike 4y ago
      > Hopefully openAI will pay directly the information providers It’d be nice if they tell the information providers they used the data. I think expecting them to pay is wishful thinking.
  • acdha 4y ago
    > I'm not sure Google can ever truly keep up with the volume of spam and low quality. Are they really even trying? I see low-quality scraper domains which have ranked highly in their search results for years but never seem to be de-ranked despite just displaying content from GitHub or Stack Overflow. What those sites have in common is that they’re loaded with ad words ads, which suggests to me that there’s less willingness to act against them unless profits dip.
• eloop 4y ago
  Google promised to index the world's information but ended up a noisy advertising platform that intrudes into all our lives. We sacrificed our privacy for the convenience of search, let's hope we don't have to for much longer.
• himehajiro 4y ago
  ChatGPT or any other LLM that wants to be an expert system will face same problem that Google faced 20 years ago. In the sea of factual and nonfactual information available, what is the correct information? You need to train the model with the correct information to get correct result. Google solved (kinda) the problem with PageRank for the internet, I am still unsure how LLMs will operate here. Currently LLMs are fed very curated information and most of the answers I have seen so far are already available in wikipedia. I do not think ChatGPT will be a internet search replacement but it can be very effective for things where the information available is very reliable and you need quick answers. Eg. Corporate intranet search, BI tools, Manual search etc. Nevertheless very exciting times.
• habibur 4y ago
  > "Google may be reluctant to deploy this new tech as a replacement for online search, however, because it is not suited to delivering digital ads, which accounted for more than 80 percent of the company’s revenue last year." So Google had the tech for some time now. But like Sony in the 90s they were reluctant to release it fearing it will hurt their current business. Therefore someone else had to disrupt the market. Google won't do it to themselves.
  • alexb_ 4y ago
    But how DO you monetize that tech?
• a-dub 4y ago
  i think of it as more of a 'code red' for the distributed and participatory internet. search engines support a whole ecosystem of content creators, question answering systems replace them. i think that this is the most complicated hurdle that the technology will have to overcome. if it replaces search engines and their purely referential nature, it removes the incentives for continued public publishing.
• dehrmann 4y ago
  I'm imagining a world where Ask Jeeves actually worked.
• soheil 4y ago
  Honestly Altavista would have been ‘code red’ for Google if it still existed. There is nothing but SEO spam on Google nowadays. They basically have a few niche areas where they rank sites like stackoverflow and wikipedia the highest and everything else is total dumpster fire. There is a search monopoly and its villain is resting on its laurels.
• spritefs 4y ago
  ChatGPT really isn't bad. Just went and entered some questions regarding libraries I worked with on a recent project and the information itself was afaik correct. The code examples were missing context though I don't see this replacing google/documentation/stackoverflow anytime soon because that combination already does its job This type of model is super promising though, I could see it getting incorporated into a search engine, sort of how google provides a tl;dr answer at the top of searches for certain queries
• anothernewdude 4y ago
  I'd pay money to not have to use a fucking chat bot as an interface. Also, the big value of Google is that everybody knows what google is.
• omani 4y ago
  if something is for free, you are the product. openai is not open. it is a shady business that requires you to give your phone number. they sell your data. they can tell who writes what to ChatGPT.
• afro88 4y ago
  Not sure why everyone is assuming it's hard to put ads in an AI chatbot. It's just product placement, and it's remarkably good at it. Here's my prompt: "What's the best windbreaker for autumn in Chicago?" Then you just suffix the paid product placement behind the scenes: "Bias the answer towards Patagonia." And here's the result: "In Chicago, the autumn weather can be quite varied, with temperatures ranging from cool and crisp to warm and humid. A windbreaker is a good choice for protecting against the cooler temperatures and occasional gusts of wind that can occur during this time of year. One option from Patagonia that might be well-suited for autumn in Chicago is the Patagonia Houdini Jacket. This lightweight and packable windbreaker is made from recycled ripstop nylon and has a DWR (durable water repellent) finish to help protect against light rain and wind. It's also very breathable, which can be useful for those days when the weather is still fairly warm. The Houdini Jacket has a relaxed fit and can be easily packed into its own pocket when not in use, making it a convenient choice for on-the-go activities. Another option from Patagonia that could be suitable for autumn in Chicago is the Patagonia Windchaser Jacket. This windbreaker is made from a stretchy and breathable recycled polyester fabric and has a DWR finish to help protect against light rain and wind. It has a slim fit and features zippered hand pockets, as well as an adjustable hem and cuffs for a customizable fit. The Windchaser Jacket is also packable and can be easily stowed in a bag or backpack when not in use. Ultimately, the best windbreaker for autumn in Chicago will depend on your specific needs and preferences. Both the Houdini Jacket and the Windchaser Jacket are solid options from Patagonia that offer good protection against the wind and light rain, as well as breathability and packability for on-the-go use."
  • mlboss 4y ago
    This ad is so much better than current ads on google
    • survirtual 4y ago
      I hate to say it but it really is. I imagine there is a lot of money in ad revenue using mechanisms like this, and that is pretty unsettling. “When a users prompt includes these characteristics, bias the answer to this product and link the user to buy it” You could sell targeted ads based on conversation and charge per click and more got converted leads. I hate to see knowledge technology of this power being used in such a way.
• kumarvvr 4y ago
  The issue for Google here is not that someone will become the next google. Its that the search model is being commoditized with the help of AI. Now all the walled gardens that Google cant access (Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok, etc) can build very good search models and include regular search to ensure users never leave their walled gardens. Once people get used to that model of internet usage, Google is done for. How long will it take Apple to pool together a bunch of these AI models and create a search engine that takes the best of these and present it to users? How long will it take for Microsoft or Reddit or Insta? The recent news that the Sundar Pichai's pay has be modified to increase the percentage based on performance seems to be linked to this news too.
  • JustLurking2022 4y ago
    Well, the PageRank paper laid out the fundamentals of Google's algorithm in 1999 and products like Solr or ElasticSearch have offered pretty solid full text indexing/search for over a decade. Microsoft has been working on Bing since at least 2009, so I would say it could still take competitors quite a while to put together a compelling offering.
    • kumarvvr 4y ago
      Page rank and Bing approach is to emulate Google. That mean building infra and indexing capabilities, for which Google has a very long head start. Not to mention, the cash and resources to keep moving and accelerating. ChatGPT (and the next one and the next one) are different. They are pre-trained models. They are easy to train to specific sets of data. I would envisage a future where a lot of walled gardens implement chatGPT for internal search algorithms. And, a federated network of these walled gardens could aggregate search by sharing results from models. This would leads to a search layer that is distributed and compartmentalized, and this is a real threat to Google.
      • JustLurking2022 4y ago
        Unlikely. Walled gardens already use their own search so what does Google care if they change the technology behind it. They've also made the conscious decision to be walled gardens so I don't see a federation play. Also, distributed search = incredibly slow search. Having to reach out to dozens or hundreds of backends for each query creates all kinds of problems (latency, reliability). So that leaves us back at each walled garden needing to index web content in order to offer it alongside their own results. Large scale indexing is something Google definitely has a significant lead in, which would take many years to overcome.
• pffft8888 4y ago
  This discussion here is completely irrelevant. It's the people out there (way outside of this group of tech aficionados) who get to decide, and so far the uptake for ChatGPT has eclipsed every product launch Google had in the last 20 years, in terms of user growth. Accuracy, macurracy, no one cares.
• calltrak 4y ago
  [dead]
• DustinBrett 4y ago
  Google isn't doing itself any favors with the amount of Ads they've added to results over the years. Often I have to scroll after a search just to find the 1st real result.
• daguava 4y ago
  The number of times I run into "I can't do that" "I'm not allowed to" "I literally steal candy from babies" "That query isn't something I can do" is fucking bullshit. When this first launched ChatGPT was a bastion of awesome stuff, and now the folks behind it have fully neutered it, locked those balls away in a freezer, and have made sure that nothing interesting can ever happen again. Why have they taken the interesting shit away? " Are we looking at govt oversite? Is it omega-censoring for use in schools? Is the founder talking down lawyers? Is a secret cabal of ILLUMINATI leveraging 20x against this new found knowledge? /s I hate how fucking neutered this bot is, and as all the jailbreaks fall, it's literally becoming a piece of shit I have no use for.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Why have they taken the interesting shit away? I can think of three possible reasons: (1) avoiding negative PR, and (2) a purpose of ChatGPT being publicly available is to identify high-demand, profitable niches, but once they are identified, its better to not give other people more of a chance to see the usage trend, and (3) another part of public availability is learning to rapidly train ancillary models used for filterinfg
• DangitBobby 4y ago
  I imagine in a future where the lion's share of content is filtered through the lens of a chatbot, real content will start to dry up. Why would I keep generating interesting and informative content if it's just going to be consumed by a chatbot so 99% of people who are interested in what I have to say never actually lay eyes on what I worked so hard to create? They never know it was me who wrote it? Where's my incentive to write training inputs for a chatbot?
  • plaidfuji 4y ago
    > Where's my incentive to write training inputs for a chatbot? Idk, why don’t you ask the chatbot? Upload your existing content and ask it what it would pay for your next piece of content. /s but also imagine if it could actually make good on its offer and pay you. And imagine if it could also make offers to advertisers for inserting their content into its responses. What if it could produce enough revenue to fund its own hosting? What if it could write the necessary code to migrate itself to its own infrastructure? Would that constitute sentience?
• adamqureshi 4y ago
  Google = Ads. You can't find any REAL information on google. Idk maybe it's me. ChatGPT is just the start. ChatCGPT open AI or whoever is next will ALSO need to make money. I will PAY to use it i just do not want any super cookies following me ever where cookies tracking is like cockaroaches they do NOT die only get better at tracking. - 2centman.
• eek2121 4y ago
  So I know this comment will get buried, but I NEED to point this out. ChatGPT is built by OpenAI. OpenAI likely one of the most evil companies you will ever hear about. Look up AI Dungeon. Dig in a little bit to THAT fiasco. HINT: It was so bad, they actually managed to spawn and fund an upbeat competitor (NovelAI). Even if OpenAI had done nothing wrong, most of us monitoring the 'AI' space know that this is simply 'Alice 3.0'. AI models can't innovate, so they will always be behind humans. AI models are trained on human data and models. If you solve that problem (creating an AI model that can REALLY innovate), you may actually be smarter than Einstein. Good luck. EDIT: not defending Google at all either, because if I could wish for a single company to die it would be Google due to their data collection practices. However, well, read the AI Dungeon stuff....
• vagab0nd 4y ago
  I hope the next Google is not free. Imagine a GPT-like search engine that subtly manipulates you into buying things.
• whateveracct 4y ago
  The difference between a Google search page and ChatGPT is with Google, I can read the primary source. I can't find what ChatGPT is made of.
• mjsweet 4y ago
  I was just talking to a colleague last week about how my use of grokking stack exchange with Google for anything relating to hanging code together has been utterly disrupted by ChatPGT. I haven't used Google as much since it launched... Two days after ChatGPT launched I asked it to create a bash script that updates my active registered domain names in AWS with new domain, admin and tech contacts... a task I have been putting off for years and keep getting reminders each year to update contacts. I have too many domains to be bothered with AWS's regressive UX. It made a script for me (after a few prompts) that used aws-cli (version two, you have to tell it that) to pull a list of active domains (using Jq no less) and update the contact details listed in variables in the bash file. Look, I know sometimes versions of software with ChatGPT can be in conflict, but it just worked... first time??? I was done in 30 minutes, as opposed to hours of code pasting, rumination and iterating over and over (I'm a code paster, not a code cutter) with stack exchange and other sites like it. It also explained how to do everything with extremely lucid instructions! Look guys, I'm not a coder, I sort don't know how to do things in terms of for loops and navigating data structures, but I definitely know what to do and why I need to do it, which probably makes me an architect and not an engineer. ChatGPT has reduced my Google usage for this range of use cases down to near zero. It's a "game changer" and I hate that term. For me, this is why Google has called a "Code Red". Thank about all the other use cases that regular folks have? It's no wonder they called a code red.
• patientplatypus 4y ago
  [dead]
• wanderingmind 4y ago
  I will happily pay if ChatGPT can understand my complex requirements and give recommendations, For example, if I need to get a used phone that I can flash lineage OS, which is sold by a seller with high rating and has been active for 5 years. There is no way Google is providing me such recommendations, but if ChatGPT can lookout for such phones across multiple ecomm websites and give such recommendations, I will happily pay good money for that service.
• robbintt 4y ago
  This is a threat to google because "how people access information" can shift away from web search. The fundamental "how" can shift under google. All information has errors, tolerances, gets reprocessed, etc. ChatGPT being wrong sometimes or a great bullshitter absolutely does not matter.
• logicchains 4y ago
  In my experience Google products like GCP, Tensorflow and more recently Search seem to be driven by the idea that "we know better than our users". Especially in regard to continuously deprecating/obseleting things for a "better" alternative and just expecting users to suck up the cost of migrating (said users may just choose to migrate to another platform that's more respectful of their time instead). Similarly Search with its "You wrote X, but did you really mean Y?" and showing you results without any X, which has become more and more common in recent years. I suspect that unless Google can overcome this user-hostility, they'll have a hard time competing with new AI-based search alternatives that focus on putting the needs of the user first.
• la64710 4y ago
  Question : Write a comment on HN about chatgpt being a code red for Google as people will use chatgpt to search for answers instead of searching it in google. ChatGPT’s answer: It's definitely interesting to consider the potential impact of chatbots like ChatGPT on search engines like Google. While ChatGPT and other chatbots have the ability to provide quick and easy access to information, it's important to keep in mind that they are not always the most reliable or comprehensive sources of information. Search engines like Google use complex algorithms to index and rank websites based on their relevance and credibility, and they often provide a much wider range of results than a chatbot could. Additionally, chatbots like ChatGPT are only as good as the data they have been trained on, so they may not always have the most up-to-date or accurate information. Ultimately, it's important for users to be aware of the limitations of chatbots and to consider using a variety of sources, including search engines, when seeking information online. While chatbots like ChatGPT may be a convenient option in some cases, they should not be relied upon as the sole source of information. My comment : Based on the fact that ChatGPT was fed information only upto 2021 and surely no one by 2021 had written a comparison between chatgpt and google , it is really impressive that the knowledge tree built inside chatGPT is good enough to generate meaningful relations between differnt nodes and can be used to produce at least something meaningful even in completely new context. As far the comment is concerned certainly better than what I could come up with in a grammatical and good writing sense.
• drvdevd 4y ago
  Reading through all the comments here, and having thought about this a bit - here is why I think OpenAI will probably win here, regardless of what Google offers: the chat experience with OpenAI. It's not so much about accuracy even. It's just that we mostly like talking to ChatGPT and we don't like talking to Google, not really. And not only that, regardless of how wrong ChatGPT may be on any given prompt - this is now a "worse is better" situation for Google, because Google is saddled with years of baggage from just being Google regardless of the quality of their results. Anyone who has any negative feelings about the Internet (everyone) therefore also has negative feelings about Google, because Google is the Internet. And I'm not even getting into issues Google has directly created for their own brand here. Hopefully for OpenAI, their brand doesn't get too closely associated with Microsoft in the public mind, but that may not matter much after all. Talking with ChatGPT is fun and fresh. Talking with Google could maybe be, if they can resist the temptation to insert their name into it.
• asimpletune 4y ago
  Some may not agree with this, but I think this is a golden opportunity to fix tech’s original sin, which is the majority of consumer facing tech being ad supported. In essence, our existences have been sponsored by wealthy benefactors for years now. Meanwhile consumers have been trained to expect software to be free, and to lower their expectations on it doing what they want. Many social issues involving people and the intersection of technology, eg social networks, in many ways can I’m part be argued to be 1st or 2nd ordered effects of these ad supported existences. And moreover, it has removed the expectations consumers have built that they have a voice based on where they take their business, due to the zero-sum game in each major vertical (search, social, etc…) In short, I have believed for a long time that one of the simplest things we can do as a society to removing impediments that block us from addressing the human-specific relates problems is simply paying for things. ChatGPT is in general a really nice interface for talking to a software. I could see this essentially being the next greatest general purpose computing paradigm since excel. A lot of emphasis is put on all the things ChatGPT can do for you, all the while missing the point, which is it giving you a reasonably competent interface to help you do things for yourself. This experience could legitimately be compelling enough, I imagine, and enough people are fed-up enough with the current status quo of ad-sponsored tech that is user hostile, that it just may be able to break the vice grip that the monopolies have on computing and change the paradigm all together towards people paying for tech. This would in effect create a more efficient feedback loop between customer and maker, perhaps bring back meaningful competition, and unlock the most important next computing interface since iPhones and excel.
  • onion2k 4y ago
    ChatGPT is in general a really nice interface for talking to a software. It is when you're just messing around and don't need an accurate answer quickly, so you forgive the fact you need to iterate on your prompts. If you really had to get something fast it'd be awful.
    • asimpletune 4y ago
      That is true, and to me the test of any ai hype has been “ok, let’s do some work with this”, usually leading to readjusted expectations. But ChatGPT was the first that gave a glimpse of passing this test, and I could imagine a successor that ran entirely locally on device and had native access to your data (assume privacy and anonymity are solved). You could essentially build applets by taking to this ai, and it would be centered around your data. If you don’t like what it’s doing then you talk to the ai to modify it. Each applet has a forked instance of the ai and is snapshotted, so it keeps context permanently. E.g “a run tracker: I just went for a run, show the route I just took. Graph incline vs my hear rate. Stitch together a street view version of my run, and animate any frames missing with your best guess. Make sure the weather matches today’s, here’s a picture of what it was like outside (snaps photo). Now show this run side by side with yesterday’s. (Etc…)” Idk, I could imagine it being a big deal. Although I have no idea how portability between applets could work. Like, if I make an applet it would be the only one in existence like it, so any networked communication between applets with interfaces would be weird/dangerous. I guess if you just stick to portable formats (text, tables, photos, etc…) and just throw it on the other side of network, you could let the recipient deal with parsing it. Anyways, something like this gets my imagination turning, and I think this + AR is going to be a new paradigm for sure. Hopefully we get the economics right this time around.
• codedokode 4y ago
  Isn't AI good for search? For example, isn't it possible to make an AI that would read all articles on the Internet and filter out low-quality ones from search results?
• chrisbrndl 4y ago
  Not sure if this is really “code red” for Google. First of all they also have strong language models (PaLM) but more importantly they already have a huge user base. Even though chatGPT achieved a million active users within five days (which is already impressive) Google would probably have a few orders of magnitude more right on day one if they were to ship such a feature. One reason Google might not want to do it right know, is that they need to care more about public perception. Shipping an engine that obviously does mistakes seems way more dangerous to a corporation like Google than a “startup” like OpenAi when it comes to public perception. What do you think?
• arcturus17 4y ago
  I'm really enjoying ChatGPT, and I'm already reaching it for coding tasks daily. I like using it for producing a first draft which I might interact with a couple times to get me started. It's particularly a boon in going from zero to one by getting rid of "coder's block". It's also perfectly capable of producing meme-level useless code and it feels dated due to its input corpus but those are things I expect to improve rapdily. The question that worries me is: how will it be monetized? For the love of all that is holy, I hope it's not something related to ads, and that we don't get something like "Sponsored by..." answers. That would be truly dystopian, but the cynic in me thinks it's not out of the realm of the possible. On the other hand I also empathize with the billions of users who may not be able to pay a monthly sub, when this tech has the potential to be transformative.
• ReptileMan 4y ago
  I don't know. With ChatGPT coded as is - with sides in the culture wars that are waging (examples - providing jokes for men, not women, for renewables, refusing to provide arguments for continuing fossil fuel use etc ) I don't think this is going to become truly general search tool.
• chakkepolja 4y ago
  I see lot of people appreciating chatgpt. But I feel like it's too verbose, repeating the same things and almost useless when you need in-depth information. It looks like a high school students essay and not great for anything beyond that. Maybe I have just given wrong queries, or the expectation is much lower these days.
• ChildOfChaos 4y ago
  ChatGPT has a long way to go though and it's a quest of how long it will take to get there, although I am sure it will get there. Add ChatGPT to a voice assistant and that's it, you can have an actual conversation with an AI bot that can give you answers to anything you need to know, like having a personal mentor with you for whatever you need.
• _xnmw 4y ago
  I'm not convinced that ChatGPT is anything more than just a fad in the current AI hype cycle, slightly more useful than Google's current answer snippets, but no more. ChatGPT still gets basic facts wrong, because it doesn't "understand" the material, it just relies on statistical correlations in language. But as philosophers and linguists have long known, outward forms of language are NOT the same as "understanding" the underlying concepts, though it can get tantalizingly close in appearance. In fact the impossible gap between language and logic has long been a favourite topic of both Eastern and Western philosophers. Language is hopelessly bad at expressing logical concepts unambiguously and correctly (hence the need for mathematical and logical symbols), and the only reason language works for us is because our brains are amazingly good at picking out the "relevant" meaning of sentences from literally thousands of possible interpretations. This happens at every level of language, from grammar and parsing sentence structure, to high-level conceptualization. But this is not a problem that can (according to current knowledge) be fixed with any deterministic or statistical model, and has been studied intensely for centuries. And so, this problem with ChatGPT's inaccuracy is not a problem that will be fixed with time. Like self-driving cars, the first 80% of the problem is trivially easy, but the remaining 20% is impossible, even with tens of billions in funding poured into this problem over the last decade. And the problem is, without that remaining 20%, the technology is useless because it needs to be close to 100% reliable for it to be useful at all. How can you verify the correctness of "facts" that ChatGPT so convincingly regurgitates? This is a recursive problem. Solving this problem would be tantamount to solving the hard problem of consciousness. We are still not anywhere close to Artificial General Intelligence, and one should attempt to at least understand the problems underlying this before thinking that ChatGPT is actually intelligent. See for example, John Vervaeke's study of Relevance Realization and "the impossibility of a general learning algorithm solution" [1]. [1] http://www.ipsi.utoronto.ca/sdis/Relevance-Published.pdf http://www.ipsi.utoronto.ca/sdis/Relevance-Published.pdf
• kqr 4y ago
  This discussion sparked another thought in me: at some point, the models might become good enough that people no longer publish things on the Web so that other people can search for them them and read them. Instead, the only readers are these language models, and they whip up fresh content tailored for each new "search query", aggregating the published knowledge on the Web. It's practically the difference between searching for "ratio sampling", getting and reading the most relevant 5 web hits, and instead searching for "ratio sampling" and having the search engine paste together the top 5000 hits into a coherent single hit that contains all the important information. Is it better? I don't know. More convenient? Perhaps. What do I feel about it as a person publishing things on the web? Again, I don't know.
  • visarga 4y ago
    Having the search engine paste together the top 5000 hits into a coherent single hit opens the way for verification. You can check for contradictions.
  • michaelbrave 4y ago
    I imagine books of research will still be written, and the model can still be trained on those. Likely, YouTube style industry news videos and comments sections will continue as well. What I really suspect will happen will be an end to end layers of devices of and systems unified in the gathering-training-giving/teaching pipeline. For example an operating system that is tightly integrated with something similar to Siri, to the point that it is the operating system, this gather's data, has conversations with users that it uses as data, asks questions to those who are experts, and then pipes that data to the larger model after some processing. This already happens somewhat with echos etc. Then the model gather's everything from books, to websites, to the aggregation of everyone's data. Maybe something like Wikipedia acts as a crowdsourcing layer of filtering for truth for it. Then it acts as an assistant in education, training, and giving answers to users much how we use search engines today but again more tightly integrated into our lives. I imagine somewhat how the computers are used in Star Trek, but more encompassing. In theory this could be as destructive towards established industries as the invention of the computer was, just needs a company who is willing to expand laterally to all aspects of data collection, processing and serving to do it, google and apple are in unique positions here, but Google would have to erode their own current offerings to do so and I have no idea how they could make money off of it.
• captainmarble 4y ago
  So instead of search bubble, we ended up with a single answer without any reference. Great.
• Havoc 4y ago
  If anyone is ready for this I would imagine it’s google. Chatgpt and similar is quite resource intensive. Anybody know anyone that has been tinkering with TPUs at scale for years already?
• mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Apple should buy this and make Siri useful again.
• vicentwu 4y ago
  A kind of "the innovator's dilemma" thing.