4 ms·

Because you already only view like 0.0001% of the web's content. Garbage is already filtered by algos. Those algos just have to keep up with chatGPT the same wa

by qup 4y ago

Because you already only view like 0.0001% of the web's content. Garbage is already filtered by algos. Those algos just have to keep up with chatGPT the same way they've already been keeping up with spam, the 95% of the web that is a dumpster fire, etc. Potentially it doesn't really become more difficult.

munificent 4y ago
> Those algos just have to keep up with chatGPT the same way they've already been keeping up with spam, the 95% of the web that is a dumpster fire, etc. That "just" is an arms race so fantastically difficult that the current leading business doing it has a market cap of $1.4 trillion. Those algos are, to date, some of the world's most sophisticated uses of AI. This is like observing that the howitzer was just invented and saying, "Don't worry, we've got chainmail armor."
- qup 4y ago
  I don't think that's a keen analogy at all. We don't currently have chainmail. s/Google search/gmail spam filtering/youtube suggested algorithm is a dike holding back an ocean of shit. I'm not sure how to make an armor analogy, so let's just say it's really good armor. Also assuming you meant 1.4T=Alphabet, I cannot go along with your pretending that the 1.4 trillion dollar cap is a function of PageRank, nor can I pretend that it's remotely related to whether they can continue providing good results post-chatGPT. Why don't you think they can handle it?
  - munificent 4y ago
    I certainly hope they can handle it. But it looks to me that generative AI is posed to give a huge new weapon to bad actors and I absolutely think that's a bad thing, regardless of whether the good actors are somehow able to defend themselves from it.
opportune 4y ago
The difference is it takes me less than a second to immediately identify that content as garbage. And the places I frequent are good at stopping that garbage from getting on their website. Between the 0.0001% we care about and the 99% percent that’s automated trash, there’s a solid 1% of content churned out by actual humans at very low quality. Think about things like recipe fluff, “news” articles for noname organizations, and all the super low effort blogs giving Birds Eye view summaries of things like Kubernetes ripped right off some other intro material. ChatGPT produces straight up better and more informative content than those actual humans, and I am almost sure that it does so much faster and at a lower price. Actually, I think in some ways ChatGPT produces better content than most of the users on Reddit these days too
- qup 4y ago
  Sure, again it really only matters if the search engine can filter the stuff we don't want to see, and show the stuff we want to see. If they can do that, we don't have a problem. It's the same as it was. If they can't do it, we have a problem. I guess there's the additional problem of bots posting comments everywhere, but that's really just a problem for social media sites and so I'm fairly unsympathetic. People do spend a lot of their time these days on social media, but that's a new phenomenon, and I doubt it will last, so I don't think the future web is ruined.

by qup 4y ago

munificent 4y ago

> Those algos just have to keep up with chatGPT the same way they've already been keeping up with spam, the 95% of the web that is a dumpster fire, etc. That "just" is an arms race so fantastically difficult that the current leading business doing it has a market cap of $1.4 trillion. Those algos are, to date, some of the world's most sophisticated uses of AI. This is like observing that the howitzer was just invented and saying, "Don't worry, we've got chainmail armor."

qup 4y ago
I don't think that's a keen analogy at all. We don't currently have chainmail. s/Google search/gmail spam filtering/youtube suggested algorithm is a dike holding back an ocean of shit. I'm not sure how to make an armor analogy, so let's just say it's really good armor. Also assuming you meant 1.4T=Alphabet, I cannot go along with your pretending that the 1.4 trillion dollar cap is a function of PageRank, nor can I pretend that it's remotely related to whether they can continue providing good results post-chatGPT. Why don't you think they can handle it?
- munificent 4y ago
  I certainly hope they can handle it. But it looks to me that generative AI is posed to give a huge new weapon to bad actors and I absolutely think that's a bad thing, regardless of whether the good actors are somehow able to defend themselves from it.

opportune 4y ago

The difference is it takes me less than a second to immediately identify that content as garbage. And the places I frequent are good at stopping that garbage from getting on their website. Between the 0.0001% we care about and the 99% percent that’s automated trash, there’s a solid 1% of content churned out by actual humans at very low quality. Think about things like recipe fluff, “news” articles for noname organizations, and all the super low effort blogs giving Birds Eye view summaries of things like Kubernetes ripped right off some other intro material. ChatGPT produces straight up better and more informative content than those actual humans, and I am almost sure that it does so much faster and at a lower price. Actually, I think in some ways ChatGPT produces better content than most of the users on Reddit these days too

qup 4y ago
Sure, again it really only matters if the search engine can filter the stuff we don't want to see, and show the stuff we want to see. If they can do that, we don't have a problem. It's the same as it was. If they can't do it, we have a problem. I guess there's the additional problem of bots posting comments everywhere, but that's really just a problem for social media sites and so I'm fairly unsympathetic. People do spend a lot of their time these days on social media, but that's a new phenomenon, and I doubt it will last, so I don't think the future web is ruined.