12 ms·

Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that peopl

Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that people start using those chat bots massively as a replacement for Google search. Then the notion of keyword disappears. Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant. Of course, Google is a giant today with a history of machine learning innovation. So they have a good chance of being successful in that new world. But the point is that many other companies get a chance again, which hadn't happened in 20 years. You couldn't displace Google in the old search/keyword/click business model. Now everyone gets a fresh start. Who knows what the economics will be. Just like page rank early on, it was expensive to compute. But the money in advertising made it worth it, and Google scaled rapidly. Which language model do you run? The expensive one, or the light one (notice how Google in this announcement mentions they will only offer the significantly smaller model to the public). Can you make this profitable? Other fun questions to answer if the industry moves to chat vs. search, in a 5-10 year horizon. What is the motivation to write a blog post by then? Imagine no one actually reads web sites. Instead a blog post to share an opinion, I'll probably want to make sure my opinion gets picked up by the language model. How do I do that? Computed knowledge may render many websites and blogs obsolete.

s3p 4y ago
I think this is the same type of thinking that people had when they think technology will "steal" jobs, when in reality we have lower and lower unemployment as time goes on. Most likely this will not actually happen, and even if it did your content would still be valuable as an AI is analyzing it in a more nuanced way than just looking for keywords. Which, by the way, is exactly what search engines do.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > I think this is the same type of thinking that people had when they think technology will "steal" jobs, when in reality we have lower and lower unemployment as time goes on. Technical changes do kill jobs. We always find a way to invent jobs, of course, but that doesn't mean old jobs aren't viable. Movie theaters once employed professional musicians, not they don't, because movies have audio built in. Obviously a net-loss since musicians are jobs people like. Less coal miners or farmers is probably a good thing though. It all depends on the type of job you replace. If you replace hard manual labor jobs, you're a net-good. Replacing a job people like... and you'll get a negative label. Doesn't change the fact that progress marches on, but jobs are killed by tech changes.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    [dead]
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  It has stolen in that productivity has skyrocketed while wages have been kept relatively suppressed. That's the feat of technology.
- alvah 4y ago
  A lot of the jobs we have now resemble David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" though. I suspect many jobs that largely consist of making powerpoints and looking out of a window could disappear tomorrow without upsetting anyone except the incumbents.
  - epistemer 4y ago
    I completely disagree and I love David Graeber. We will automate some bullshit jobs but create all kinds of new bullshit jobs that have titles that start with AI. Thousands of titles like "AI ____ ____ Manager" that also does nothing but schedule meetings about meetings about AI. The mistake to me is to believe bullshit jobs are the end result of some systemic inefficiency that AI is going to automate out of existence. I just don't think that is at all the case because otherwise we would just cut so many bullshit jobs right now without AI.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
deltree7 4y ago
Delusional to think Ads work only on Keywords. Where there is human attention, there will always be ads. The more context, the better ads.
- galleywest200 4y ago
  The ads need to be served in context to a conversation and cannot just pollute a search page like they do now. Ads now are easy, dumb things.
- coredog64 4y ago
  There’s a smaller surface are for ads in a targeted chat session. At present, Google can show me ads on the results page. Each subsequent result that I view is an additional slice of my attention. It’s possible that Google can deliver a few targeted ads, but what if they can’t? What about the rest of the market that’s now gone? Possible that all those missed opportunities remove the ability to discover price.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    The ads could be slipped right into the chat itself.
    - ancientworldnow 4y ago
      Which is almost assuredly FAR more effective.
  - dubcanada 4y ago
    You completely ignore the fact that companies will show ads everywhere, there is no reason that they would not try to inject ads into chat. "Here is the answer to your question about oranges. But did you know Tropicana is made from 100% real orange juice?" "A project manager is a ... Often the software project managers use is Zoho Projects for the best agile sprint planning" If they can put ads in it, there will be ads in it.
    - 4y ago
eklitzke 4y ago
The point about the economics of running these models is an important one that slides under the radar a lot of times. The training costs for large language models like GPT are enormous, and the inference costs are substantial too. Right now things like ChatGPT are very cool parlor tricks, but there's absolutely no way to justify them in terms of the economics of running the service today. Obviously this is all going to change in the near to mid future: innovation will drive down costs of both training and inference, and the models will be monetized in ways that bring in more revenue. But I don't think the long term economics are obvious to anyone, including Google or OpenAI. It's really hard to predict how much more efficient we'll get at training/serving these models as most of the gains there are going to come from improved model architectures, and it's very difficult to predict how much room for improvement there is there. Google (and Microsoft, Yandex, Baidu, etc.) know how to index the web and serve search queries to users at an extremely low cost per query that can be compensated by ads that make fractions of a cent per impression. It's not obvious at all if that's possible with LLMs, or if it possible, what the timescale is to get to a place where the economics make sense and the service actually makes money.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  1. How much did it cost to train ChatGPT/GPT3? The only estimate I’ve seen was not enormous in the grand scheme of things (eg more money than I have but less than Google have stuck down the back of the sofa). I think that number didn’t count training precursor models or paying for people to come up with the models/training data/infra. 2. Don’t Google have specialised hardware for training neural networks? If the costs of training/inference are very significant won’t Google (with their ASIC and hardware design team) have a significant advantage? It seems to me that their AI hardware was developed because they saw this problem coming a long way off.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    1. We don't know the exact cost, but its well into the millions. When Microsoft invested in OpenAI, it did so in the form of ~$500M in azure credits, so they're expecting at least that much in compute spend. Another company estimated that GPT-3 alone cost the equivalent of $4.5M in cloud costs (ignoring OpenAI's other models). 2. Yes. Yes they will/are developing custom silicon that will likely be a significant advantage here. GPU costs were always crazy, and many companies are designing AI chips now. Even the iPhone chips have custom AI Cores. We'll see if Azure releases AI co-processors to aid them...
kerpotgh 4y ago
Why would keywords disappear? Wouldn’t you just use keywords that appear in the user input and response to serve ads?
guelo 4y ago
Google could ask the llm what products or services would help with the question and show ads for that. Just tried it and it worked pretty well. > Me: 8 year old girl birthday party ideas > Chatgpt: <a list including craft party, scavenger hunt, dance party> > Me: what products or services could I buy for it > Chatgpt: craft party: craft supplies such as beads, glue, paint, and fabric - scavengerhunt: prizes for the scavenger hunt and decorations - dance party: Hire a DJ or a dance instructor, and purchase party lights and decorations Though in reality Google already has highly tuned models for extracting ads out of any prompt
- freediver 4y ago
  The question becomes will you trust information that is paid for by advertisers or you will trust information that is paid by you, the user? With ads in link based search engine, you can skip or block them, but if it is a part of a one sentence answer, there is not much you can do about it, so consuming it will be much more frustrating. Of course, there will still be a lot of people who will choose the free information paid by the advertisers, but there will also be a growing number of users who will prefer not to have advertisers pay for the information they put into their heads (it is already clear that such information will be of higher quality). My prediction is that in 10 years, all free information paid by advertisers will have 'for entertainment purposes only' label, because by then we will understand as a society that that is its peak value.
  - inimino 4y ago
    "a growing number", "a lot". Where are those users now? We are a tiny lot, nearly economically inconsequential. Your prediction is optimistic.
    - freediver 4y ago
      Those users are now paying for Kagi search for example. They are maybe a tiny lot because this evolution of information consumption has just begun. My prediction was for 10 years from now. Patience.
kolinko 4y ago
The motivation for writing a blog post may be the same as when blogoslhere originally started - for your community to read it.
- hypothesis 4y ago
  I’m afraid that we will be drowning in synthetic blog posts. Same goes for comments section…
  - literalAardvark 4y ago
    We're already drowning in very high quality synthetic comments. In fact the high quality is the best way to recognize them... What the actual users post is trash, and then all of a sudden there's a huge thread of very educated users having a conversation that just happens to plug a product. There will be some shifts for sure, but I'm not convinced that they'll be that large, since we're already pretty screwed on the signal to noise ratio of the www.
Denzel 4y ago
All these conversations have one glaring omission. As it stands right now, ChatGPT is a net negative on the ecosystem it exists in. What does that mean? ChatGPT extracts value from the ecosystem by hoovering up primary sources to provide answers, but what value does ChatGPT give back to these primary sources? What incentivizes content creators to continue producing for ChatGPT? Right now, nothing. ChatGPT (or its descendants) must solve this problem to be economically viable.
- adammarples 4y ago
  They don't need to solve that problem. Lots of things cannabilise on others without needing to pay them back to be viable. Wikipedia is really just a collection of sources, summarized. It owes nothing to the authors of the source material and does not seek to redress the balance. Google is a sophisticated filter for sources, it doesn't need to pay anything back to them to provide value for the searcher. Same with chatgpt, it filters and transforms its source material but owes nothing in return. News will still be published, data will still be generated at scale.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > Wikipedia is really just a collection of sources, summarized. It owes nothing to the authors of the source material And yet it provides references and attribution where possible most of the time.
    - zone411 4y ago
      ...which do nothing for the websites that had the original content.
      - acdha 4y ago
        This is the opposite of true in my experience: if you run a content-heavy site, Wikipedia is going to be one of your top traffic sources — especially for time on site since the visitors who arrive tend to have a very low bounce rate.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mrkramer 4y ago
>Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that people start using those chat bots massively as a replacement for Google search. Then the notion of keyword disappears. Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant. Look up the term "native advertising", that should help you in understanding how online ad ecosystem works.
- bbor 4y ago
  How so? How does native advertising solve the problem of diminishing volumes of keyword searches? How does it even relate to search ads?
  - ragingroosevelt 4y ago
    if you inject native advertising into the responses? nothing is technically limiting the chat responses from being exclusively the output of the LLM. mix LLM model output with native advertising copy and it's nearly undetectable if you're not looking out for it. and good luck catching those integrated ads in your adblock.
nektro 4y ago
was this comment satire?
cush 4y ago
> Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant AdSense is going to be able to be more targeted and relevant than ever before. Last week, Linus Tech Tips used ChatGPT to build a Gaming PC... from parts selection to instructions on how to build. When chatGPT said, "first, select a CPU", Linus asked it questions like "What CPU should I choose, if I only care about gaming?", and got excellent answers. I can imagine BestBuy, NewEgg, and Microcenter will be fighting for those top AdSense spots just as much as they do today "Bard, I'm looking for a blender to make smoothies" ... "does it come in red?" ... "I want it to crush ice" BUY
29athrowaway 4y ago
If you are looking for news and recent events, LLMs are useless.
- literalAardvark 4y ago
  For the next six months... At most. Efficient model updates are already in the pipeline, and the only reason there's a learning cutoff is probably AI ethics.
ElFitz 4y ago
> Imagine no one actually reads web sites. Instead a blog post to share an opinion, I'll probably want to make sure my opinion gets picked up by the language model. How do I do that? Computed knowledge may render many websites and blogs obsolete. Realising that has made me wonder why I should bother write anything publicly accessible online. Aside from pure altruism and love for my fellow human, or some unexplainable desire to selflessly contribute to some private company’s product and bottom lime, in a world where discovery happens through a language model that rephrases everything it’s way and provides all the answers, why should I feed it? What do I stand to gain from it, apart from feeling I have perhaps contributed to the betterment of humankind? In which case, why should a private company reap the benefits and a language model the credit?
- q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
  > What do I stand to gain from it The AI will absorb your words, and some small part of you will gain immortality. In some small but very real way, you'll live forever, some part of you ensconced safely for all eternity in a handful of vectors deep inside a pile of inscrutable matrices. ...at least, until some CEO lays off that whole team to juice the stock price.
  - unsupp0rted 4y ago
    That sort of thing always felt meaningless to me. Sure I could carve my name or a blog post into a cave wall… so what. “Some small part” of me doesn’t live on. Even some small part of Aristotle or Cleopatra doesn’t live on. Ideas and stories live, but people die. The death of personality is currently total and final. I don’t know why Billionaires don’t invest their entire fortunes into research on reversing this.
    - xyzelement 4y ago
      I think relatively few people share this kind of existential dread. It actually has never crossed my mind personally. If I think 500 years into the future, what would be great is if my descendants are ample and thriving, and my values are upheld. That feels like such a win to me. The fact that I won't physically be there is irrelevant. On the other hand, artificial continuation of an otherwise impact-less life sounds awful to me. I suspect that billionaires (certainly, the 2 that I have some insight into having worked for them) think much more about impact they are creating, than some sort of "hang on forever like a barnacle" type of existence.
Andrex 4y ago
Google realized this years ago, hence Google Now (the voice interface) then Google Assistant. The problem right now is their backend isn't competitive, but Bard could change that.
brookst 4y ago
> What is the motivation to write a blog post by then? LLM’s have done a poor job with attribution and provenance, but that will change. At some point, it becomes a bit like academia or celebrity: your motivation to write is the social exposure your writing earns, which leads to real world opportunities like jobs or sponsorships or whatnot. And the great/terrible thing is that these models will know whose opinions are influencing others. The upside is that spam disappears if human nature changes and nobody is influenced by spammers. The downside is. . . Spam and content become totally inseperable.
soheil 4y ago
> AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant Google doesn't make money with AdSense, it pays publishers with it. I agree that there won't be a need for AdSense, that just means Google gets to keep 100% of the profit instead. No, not everyone gets a fresh start at all. To train anything close to ChatGPT you really do need to be the size of Google or Microsoft to have enough the compute power.
ReptileMan 4y ago
>Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. There is problem with those AIs - you view the world trough the ideological prism of their creators and censors. So chatgpt that is more than happy to make jokes for some races and not others or other types of shenanigans is something I am sure will happily hide the information I actually want to find and feeds me what it wants me to find. So until there are guarantees about ideological neutrality they are not suitable for search for me.
hokkos 4y ago
you could imagine those AI trained to incorporate ads in their answers.
vicentwu 4y ago
It's fascinating to think about the future landscape of the search and web. Some assumptions: 1. Url-based web will not wither away. 2. Asking questions in the chat-like mode is more natural to people. 3. Generated answers cost more when longer. 4. Generated answers are some kind of distilled knowledge and can't be right all the time. 4. People don't like long answers and prefer the concise one. 5. Sources and citations make generated answers more credible. 6. Fully exploring a question needs a lot of information from different views. 7. Generated answers some simple thoughts: The search behavior would hugely be two main steps: 1.getting some concise answers from the AI model directly through a chat, which might be enough for 90% use cases. 2.some more extensive search just like how people are searching today, which might be a kind of niche. For websites, being cited in the generated answers will be the new kind of SEO things, and it would be a good strategy to producing some newest, deep or long-tail knowledge and information, which leads to a more traditional way of search because AI model doesn't have enough data to generate a good answer. ...
- basch 4y ago
  >Asking questions in the chat-like mode is more natural to people. It's not just that it's chat, its the ability to refine. Currently, I search something. It returns garbage. I search something new. What I dont do is tell the search what it did wrong the first time. I might sort of do that with -words, but its a fight every time. The beauty of these new chat systems is that they have short term memory. Its bein able to work within the parameters and context of the conversation. I dont particularly care if it is "chat like" or has its own syntax, what I want is a short term state. And at the same time, I want long term state. I want to be able to save instructions as simple commands and retrieve them later. Like if I am searching for product reviews, to only return articles where it is convinced the people actually bought and tried the products, not just assembled a list from an online search.

s3p 4y ago

I think this is the same type of thinking that people had when they think technology will "steal" jobs, when in reality we have lower and lower unemployment as time goes on. Most likely this will not actually happen, and even if it did your content would still be valuable as an AI is analyzing it in a more nuanced way than just looking for keywords. Which, by the way, is exactly what search engines do.

vineyardmike 4y ago
> I think this is the same type of thinking that people had when they think technology will "steal" jobs, when in reality we have lower and lower unemployment as time goes on. Technical changes do kill jobs. We always find a way to invent jobs, of course, but that doesn't mean old jobs aren't viable. Movie theaters once employed professional musicians, not they don't, because movies have audio built in. Obviously a net-loss since musicians are jobs people like. Less coal miners or farmers is probably a good thing though. It all depends on the type of job you replace. If you replace hard manual labor jobs, you're a net-good. Replacing a job people like... and you'll get a negative label. Doesn't change the fact that progress marches on, but jobs are killed by tech changes.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  [dead]
wahnfrieden 4y ago
It has stolen in that productivity has skyrocketed while wages have been kept relatively suppressed. That's the feat of technology.
alvah 4y ago
A lot of the jobs we have now resemble David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" though. I suspect many jobs that largely consist of making powerpoints and looking out of a window could disappear tomorrow without upsetting anyone except the incumbents.
- epistemer 4y ago
  I completely disagree and I love David Graeber. We will automate some bullshit jobs but create all kinds of new bullshit jobs that have titles that start with AI. Thousands of titles like "AI ____ ____ Manager" that also does nothing but schedule meetings about meetings about AI. The mistake to me is to believe bullshit jobs are the end result of some systemic inefficiency that AI is going to automate out of existence. I just don't think that is at all the case because otherwise we would just cut so many bullshit jobs right now without AI.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

deltree7 4y ago

Delusional to think Ads work only on Keywords. Where there is human attention, there will always be ads. The more context, the better ads.

galleywest200 4y ago
The ads need to be served in context to a conversation and cannot just pollute a search page like they do now. Ads now are easy, dumb things.
coredog64 4y ago
There’s a smaller surface are for ads in a targeted chat session. At present, Google can show me ads on the results page. Each subsequent result that I view is an additional slice of my attention. It’s possible that Google can deliver a few targeted ads, but what if they can’t? What about the rest of the market that’s now gone? Possible that all those missed opportunities remove the ability to discover price.
- runnerup 4y ago
  The ads could be slipped right into the chat itself.
  - ancientworldnow 4y ago
    Which is almost assuredly FAR more effective.
- dubcanada 4y ago
  You completely ignore the fact that companies will show ads everywhere, there is no reason that they would not try to inject ads into chat. "Here is the answer to your question about oranges. But did you know Tropicana is made from 100% real orange juice?" "A project manager is a ... Often the software project managers use is Zoho Projects for the best agile sprint planning" If they can put ads in it, there will be ads in it.
  - 4y ago

eklitzke 4y ago

The point about the economics of running these models is an important one that slides under the radar a lot of times. The training costs for large language models like GPT are enormous, and the inference costs are substantial too. Right now things like ChatGPT are very cool parlor tricks, but there's absolutely no way to justify them in terms of the economics of running the service today. Obviously this is all going to change in the near to mid future: innovation will drive down costs of both training and inference, and the models will be monetized in ways that bring in more revenue. But I don't think the long term economics are obvious to anyone, including Google or OpenAI. It's really hard to predict how much more efficient we'll get at training/serving these models as most of the gains there are going to come from improved model architectures, and it's very difficult to predict how much room for improvement there is there. Google (and Microsoft, Yandex, Baidu, etc.) know how to index the web and serve search queries to users at an extremely low cost per query that can be compensated by ads that make fractions of a cent per impression. It's not obvious at all if that's possible with LLMs, or if it possible, what the timescale is to get to a place where the economics make sense and the service actually makes money.

dan-robertson 4y ago
1. How much did it cost to train ChatGPT/GPT3? The only estimate I’ve seen was not enormous in the grand scheme of things (eg more money than I have but less than Google have stuck down the back of the sofa). I think that number didn’t count training precursor models or paying for people to come up with the models/training data/infra. 2. Don’t Google have specialised hardware for training neural networks? If the costs of training/inference are very significant won’t Google (with their ASIC and hardware design team) have a significant advantage? It seems to me that their AI hardware was developed because they saw this problem coming a long way off.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  1. We don't know the exact cost, but its well into the millions. When Microsoft invested in OpenAI, it did so in the form of ~$500M in azure credits, so they're expecting at least that much in compute spend. Another company estimated that GPT-3 alone cost the equivalent of $4.5M in cloud costs (ignoring OpenAI's other models). 2. Yes. Yes they will/are developing custom silicon that will likely be a significant advantage here. GPU costs were always crazy, and many companies are designing AI chips now. Even the iPhone chips have custom AI Cores. We'll see if Azure releases AI co-processors to aid them...

kerpotgh 4y ago

Why would keywords disappear? Wouldn’t you just use keywords that appear in the user input and response to serve ads?

guelo 4y ago

Google could ask the llm what products or services would help with the question and show ads for that. Just tried it and it worked pretty well. > Me: 8 year old girl birthday party ideas > Chatgpt: <a list including craft party, scavenger hunt, dance party> > Me: what products or services could I buy for it > Chatgpt: craft party: craft supplies such as beads, glue, paint, and fabric - scavengerhunt: prizes for the scavenger hunt and decorations - dance party: Hire a DJ or a dance instructor, and purchase party lights and decorations Though in reality Google already has highly tuned models for extracting ads out of any prompt

freediver 4y ago
The question becomes will you trust information that is paid for by advertisers or you will trust information that is paid by you, the user? With ads in link based search engine, you can skip or block them, but if it is a part of a one sentence answer, there is not much you can do about it, so consuming it will be much more frustrating. Of course, there will still be a lot of people who will choose the free information paid by the advertisers, but there will also be a growing number of users who will prefer not to have advertisers pay for the information they put into their heads (it is already clear that such information will be of higher quality). My prediction is that in 10 years, all free information paid by advertisers will have 'for entertainment purposes only' label, because by then we will understand as a society that that is its peak value.
- inimino 4y ago
  "a growing number", "a lot". Where are those users now? We are a tiny lot, nearly economically inconsequential. Your prediction is optimistic.
  - freediver 4y ago
    Those users are now paying for Kagi search for example. They are maybe a tiny lot because this evolution of information consumption has just begun. My prediction was for 10 years from now. Patience.

kolinko 4y ago

The motivation for writing a blog post may be the same as when blogoslhere originally started - for your community to read it.

hypothesis 4y ago
I’m afraid that we will be drowning in synthetic blog posts. Same goes for comments section…
- literalAardvark 4y ago
  We're already drowning in very high quality synthetic comments. In fact the high quality is the best way to recognize them... What the actual users post is trash, and then all of a sudden there's a huge thread of very educated users having a conversation that just happens to plug a product. There will be some shifts for sure, but I'm not convinced that they'll be that large, since we're already pretty screwed on the signal to noise ratio of the www.

Denzel 4y ago

All these conversations have one glaring omission. As it stands right now, ChatGPT is a net negative on the ecosystem it exists in. What does that mean? ChatGPT extracts value from the ecosystem by hoovering up primary sources to provide answers, but what value does ChatGPT give back to these primary sources? What incentivizes content creators to continue producing for ChatGPT? Right now, nothing. ChatGPT (or its descendants) must solve this problem to be economically viable.

adammarples 4y ago
They don't need to solve that problem. Lots of things cannabilise on others without needing to pay them back to be viable. Wikipedia is really just a collection of sources, summarized. It owes nothing to the authors of the source material and does not seek to redress the balance. Google is a sophisticated filter for sources, it doesn't need to pay anything back to them to provide value for the searcher. Same with chatgpt, it filters and transforms its source material but owes nothing in return. News will still be published, data will still be generated at scale.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > Wikipedia is really just a collection of sources, summarized. It owes nothing to the authors of the source material And yet it provides references and attribution where possible most of the time.
  - zone411 4y ago
    ...which do nothing for the websites that had the original content.
    - acdha 4y ago
      This is the opposite of true in my experience: if you run a content-heavy site, Wikipedia is going to be one of your top traffic sources — especially for time on site since the visitors who arrive tend to have a very low bounce rate.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mrkramer 4y ago

>Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. Imagine that people start using those chat bots massively as a replacement for Google search. Then the notion of keyword disappears. Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant. Look up the term "native advertising", that should help you in understanding how online ad ecosystem works.

bbor 4y ago
How so? How does native advertising solve the problem of diminishing volumes of keyword searches? How does it even relate to search ads?
- ragingroosevelt 4y ago
  if you inject native advertising into the responses? nothing is technically limiting the chat responses from being exclusively the output of the LLM. mix LLM model output with native advertising copy and it's nearly undetectable if you're not looking out for it. and good luck catching those integrated ads in your adblock.

nektro 4y ago

was this comment satire?

cush 4y ago

> Google AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant AdSense is going to be able to be more targeted and relevant than ever before. Last week, Linus Tech Tips used ChatGPT to build a Gaming PC... from parts selection to instructions on how to build. When chatGPT said, "first, select a CPU", Linus asked it questions like "What CPU should I choose, if I only care about gaming?", and got excellent answers. I can imagine BestBuy, NewEgg, and Microcenter will be fighting for those top AdSense spots just as much as they do today "Bard, I'm looking for a blender to make smoothies" ... "does it come in red?" ... "I want it to crush ice" BUY

29athrowaway 4y ago

If you are looking for news and recent events, LLMs are useless.

literalAardvark 4y ago
For the next six months... At most. Efficient model updates are already in the pipeline, and the only reason there's a learning cutoff is probably AI ethics.

ElFitz 4y ago

> Imagine no one actually reads web sites. Instead a blog post to share an opinion, I'll probably want to make sure my opinion gets picked up by the language model. How do I do that? Computed knowledge may render many websites and blogs obsolete. Realising that has made me wonder why I should bother write anything publicly accessible online. Aside from pure altruism and love for my fellow human, or some unexplainable desire to selflessly contribute to some private company’s product and bottom lime, in a world where discovery happens through a language model that rephrases everything it’s way and provides all the answers, why should I feed it? What do I stand to gain from it, apart from feeling I have perhaps contributed to the betterment of humankind? In which case, why should a private company reap the benefits and a language model the credit?

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
> What do I stand to gain from it The AI will absorb your words, and some small part of you will gain immortality. In some small but very real way, you'll live forever, some part of you ensconced safely for all eternity in a handful of vectors deep inside a pile of inscrutable matrices. ...at least, until some CEO lays off that whole team to juice the stock price.
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  That sort of thing always felt meaningless to me. Sure I could carve my name or a blog post into a cave wall… so what. “Some small part” of me doesn’t live on. Even some small part of Aristotle or Cleopatra doesn’t live on. Ideas and stories live, but people die. The death of personality is currently total and final. I don’t know why Billionaires don’t invest their entire fortunes into research on reversing this.
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    I think relatively few people share this kind of existential dread. It actually has never crossed my mind personally. If I think 500 years into the future, what would be great is if my descendants are ample and thriving, and my values are upheld. That feels like such a win to me. The fact that I won't physically be there is irrelevant. On the other hand, artificial continuation of an otherwise impact-less life sounds awful to me. I suspect that billionaires (certainly, the 2 that I have some insight into having worked for them) think much more about impact they are creating, than some sort of "hang on forever like a barnacle" type of existence.

Andrex 4y ago

Google realized this years ago, hence Google Now (the voice interface) then Google Assistant. The problem right now is their backend isn't competitive, but Bard could change that.

brookst 4y ago

> What is the motivation to write a blog post by then? LLM’s have done a poor job with attribution and provenance, but that will change. At some point, it becomes a bit like academia or celebrity: your motivation to write is the social exposure your writing earns, which leads to real world opportunities like jobs or sponsorships or whatnot. And the great/terrible thing is that these models will know whose opinions are influencing others. The upside is that spam disappears if human nature changes and nobody is influenced by spammers. The downside is. . . Spam and content become totally inseperable.

soheil 4y ago

> AdSense becomes mostly irrelevant Google doesn't make money with AdSense, it pays publishers with it. I agree that there won't be a need for AdSense, that just means Google gets to keep 100% of the profit instead. No, not everyone gets a fresh start at all. To train anything close to ChatGPT you really do need to be the size of Google or Microsoft to have enough the compute power.

ReptileMan 4y ago

>Those new language models are "Google killers" because they reset all the assumptions that people have made about search for several decades. There is problem with those AIs - you view the world trough the ideological prism of their creators and censors. So chatgpt that is more than happy to make jokes for some races and not others or other types of shenanigans is something I am sure will happily hide the information I actually want to find and feeds me what it wants me to find. So until there are guarantees about ideological neutrality they are not suitable for search for me.

hokkos 4y ago

you could imagine those AI trained to incorporate ads in their answers.

vicentwu 4y ago

It's fascinating to think about the future landscape of the search and web. Some assumptions: 1. Url-based web will not wither away. 2. Asking questions in the chat-like mode is more natural to people. 3. Generated answers cost more when longer. 4. Generated answers are some kind of distilled knowledge and can't be right all the time. 4. People don't like long answers and prefer the concise one. 5. Sources and citations make generated answers more credible. 6. Fully exploring a question needs a lot of information from different views. 7. Generated answers some simple thoughts: The search behavior would hugely be two main steps: 1.getting some concise answers from the AI model directly through a chat, which might be enough for 90% use cases. 2.some more extensive search just like how people are searching today, which might be a kind of niche. For websites, being cited in the generated answers will be the new kind of SEO things, and it would be a good strategy to producing some newest, deep or long-tail knowledge and information, which leads to a more traditional way of search because AI model doesn't have enough data to generate a good answer. ...

basch 4y ago
>Asking questions in the chat-like mode is more natural to people. It's not just that it's chat, its the ability to refine. Currently, I search something. It returns garbage. I search something new. What I dont do is tell the search what it did wrong the first time. I might sort of do that with -words, but its a fight every time. The beauty of these new chat systems is that they have short term memory. Its bein able to work within the parameters and context of the conversation. I dont particularly care if it is "chat like" or has its own syntax, what I want is a short term state. And at the same time, I want long term state. I want to be able to save instructions as simple commands and retrieve them later. Like if I am searching for product reviews, to only return articles where it is convinced the people actually bought and tried the products, not just assembled a list from an online search.