7 ms·
That's good for users, potentially. But not good for the sites where google is sourcing the information.
by CabSauce 4y ago
That's good for users, potentially. But not good for the sites where google is sourcing the information.
- echelon 4y agoThe web was a stepping stone.
- daveidol 4y agoThat's one of the big problems with these types of AI - piggybacking on everyone else's work, typically with no attribution _whatsoever_.
- amelius 4y agoYet you better cooperate otherwise you won't get any visitors at all.
- visarga 4y agoNobody owes you visitors.
- Aachen 4y agoNobody owes you a normal life but it would be a shame if society actually thought that way and we never developed social security and universal healthcare. Using the monopoly on search to dictate how you shall present your content to the google god is still a bad thing.
- kerpotgh 4y agoGoogle brings visitors to your site for free or no one would find it in the first place. You can always robot opt out and then your information is “secure”.
- jjeaff 4y agoPotentially good for users initially. But I can't see how anyone will be incentivized to create and post content for Google to scrape if they won't have any traffic from Google. It could actually be a huge benefit in some ways if it chokes out the content mills. However, something tells me that they have little to no overhead compared to the people who actually toil away to post good, original content.
- bnralt 4y ago> But I can't see how anyone will be incentivized to create and post content for Google to scrape if they won't have any traffic from Google. The problem right now is that the incentives have caused most of the output online to be garbage.
- nabakin 4y agoExactly. If Google is able to provide better answers than the garbage websites with their SEO hacks, those garbage websites will not get clicks. I could see this improving the incentive system significantly
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nwienert 4y ago- collect creators content, make it searchable, become worlds largest company - encourage more content because PROFIT - content becomes garbage - have to pay those pesky content creators - slowly squeeze out entire industries by inlining more and more content - still, not squeezing the juice all the way - introduce "AI", it just laundries copyrighted content to look original - bye creators - for some odd reason people cheer you for this - creators forced to make their content private
- nabakin 4y agoGarbage websites are 'content creators' now?
- armchairhacker 4y agoI’d rather get my information without having to click on a site. I get the need for attribution but Google can cite the sources it gets it’s content from, and I don’t really care about losing ad money. But another issue is accuracy. Of course real sites aren’t always accurate, but they’re way more reliable than AI (and sometimes the site is ground truth like official docs so it can be trusted…unless…the official docs are wrong….).
- woeirua 4y agoCustomers may not care, but content producers absolutely will. Chatbot like interfaces that lead to "no-click" searches are going to get sued out of existence, OR are going to lead to the establishment of lots of paywalls that lead the chatbot to have blindspots about information behind them.
- visarga 4y agoNews sites can reword information from other news sites, AI can train on reworded web text. It will keep the information but not learn the exact original expression, as it should be. Copyright protects expression, not ideas.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- LelouBil 4y agoif they cite sources, maybe they will create a new way to monetize a website based ln the amount of times it got sourced for an AI answer ?
- Aachen 4y agoI've already banned the crawler from mine for the AMP and other crap they've been pulling. If you want to get more complete results, you'll need to use another search engine, which felt like the only thing in my power that I could actually do about their shenanigans. Now I'm glad I took this decision a few years ago: they've already got a search monopoly, but not being able to copy my content to further increase it? Yes please. I just hope the competition, with less deep pockets, is able to follow suit.
- ddalex 4y agoThis seems like a personal dislike stance rather then principle, which of course you should fully take. But do you mind ChatGPT learning from your website?
- Aachen 4y agoNot sure. I don't like that I wasn't informed of them using my content, that there are no credits of any kind. I'd enjoy knowing it was useful and this info has been accessed by a chat user, the way I do when someone visits my site. That's the whole point of making it; I have no commercial interest or expectation but I enjoy helping others. But from a "this is stealing" type of perspective? Nah, we're all standing on the shoulders of giants and everything we do is a remix of something else we've seen. A human can read my site and take "away" the content, just not at this scale. And they're more likely than a dead chat bot to let me know if my content has been valuable to them.
- meken 4y agoOne thing I don’t get… I read blogs and articles for the experience I feel when I read them. There’s a look and feel to these sites. Conversing with chatGPT is just giving me information and facts. I don’t see it replacing the experience of engaging with a website.