10 ms·

It's gonna be Chatbots / NFTs all over again.

hef19898 4y ago
just wait until the various ChatGPTs are training each other using the well "researched content" they spamming the internet with... That alone will kill search more thoroughly then ChatGPT ever could by facilitating search at Bing.
- h4kor 4y ago
  I think we just ignited the AI Poisoning bomb. Future system will have a harder time to be trained, because their datasets will be poisoned. Wrote up my thoughts about this a few weeks ago when ChatGPT started https://blog.libove.org/posts/ai-posioning/ https://blog.libove.org/posts/ai-posioning/
  - hef19898 4y ago
    So future AI development will require proper training data created by humans, but have continuously harder time finding it because human creates become rarer and it gets harder to distinguish between human and AI created content? Well, I'll just go and ignore the internet for a decade or so until this thing blows over then...
    - h4kor 4y ago
      First page of google already is like that for some searches. I searched for a lot of non-tech topics and the top results are often totally incomprehensible text which contradict themselves in the next paragraph.
drewcon 4y ago
Eh, this feels different. There are some immediate utilities delivered from ChatGPT and Midjourney that feel like magic. Will they get over hyped? Sure. But is there a real kernel of something different there? I think so. Chatbots were just a worse way to fill out a form. NFTs we’re…where to even begin. But I’ve already used GPT to write thank you note and create a blog post, and I’ve used midjourney to create stock photos.
- mjr00 4y ago
  > But I’ve already used GPT to write thank you note and create a blog post, and I’ve used midjourney to create stock photos. Neither of those are searching for information, though, which is a very different use case. If 95% of the time GPT writes a great thank you note, that's very useful. If 95% of the time Midjourney gives me a good stock image, that's great! If 95% of the time GPT gives me a correct search result, that's horrible, because I now have to fact-check every time I do a search; I can no longer trust the output. Unfortunately Microsoft didn't realize this and may have just bought itself a $10 billion parlor trick machine.
  - theRealMe 4y ago
    If you think that more than 95% of the google search results give you an accurate answer, then I’ve got a search result about bridges to sell you… Edit: and to add more so this response isn’t purely trash talking: plenty of us have already switched over to using ChatGPT/bing for our standard question answerer. It is far more efficient than getting back pages of search results and having to parse through garbage site after garbage site, scrolling through pages of ads and SEO optimized copy to look for the one nugget of info. The thing is, people will adjust their usage patterns for these bots just like we did for search engines. You don’t just 100% believe what the first webpage says. You look for other contextual information to determine if you believe it or not. That is a learned pattern to how we consume search engines and a similar thing will happen with LLMs. It’s like, if you were the first person to come into contact with fire, you reached your hand in and got burnt and then declared that fire is useless because it burns you. In either case, for LLMs, search engines, or fire, if you use them incorrectly then they won’t be useful. It’s up to you to use them correctly.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - nsxwolf 4y ago
      Search doesn't give you answers, it gives you pages that are popular that may contain the answers. You have to look at those pages, consider the source, and develop your own intuition and heuristics to determine if you trust that information. It's a skill you develop over time. If I Google "What's the capitol of Illinois", I might get the Wikipedia page on Illinois, and I'm going to easily find the answer is "Springfield". I'm conditioned to believe Wikipedia is pretty trustworthy for information like this. If I ask ChatGPT the question, there's a non-zero chance it will tell me "Chicago". In the chatbot-as-search paradigm, I'm expected to just accept that error.
myth_drannon 4y ago
I stopped using google and almost don't use SO for programming related searches, my daily driver is chatGPT even when sometimes it gives bad answers. Chatbots were useless garbage from the get go and I hated them and NFT is, well NFT.
- therealcamino 4y ago
  Doesn't it bother you that it sounds just as confident when it's making stuff up as when it's accurately summarizing? Do you just think you can tell when it's wrong?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I can easily tell whether the code that ChatGPT writes for me is wrong by using an IDE. But it’s always closer to meeting my exact requirements than a Google search.
  - myth_drannon 4y ago
    Sometimes I can tell it's wrong. But it faster to try and fail than searching for an answer on Google.
blihp 4y ago
Not necessarily. The big issue they've got to overcome is hallucination. If they can do that, these LLMs will have some staying power in providing search responses. If not, they'll still be useful creative tools. Another possibility is that the LLM just gets used as an NLU front-end to the search engine. In that case keyword search essentially goes away and semantic search allows people to actually ask questions rather than playing the keyword/phrase guessing game. Either way, it seems like the advertising game on the web is going to change.
nkozyra 4y ago
Every clunky step is a footstep in the path to something amazing. This may seem amazing but the more interesting thing is where it takes us in a year, 5 years, etc.
minsc_and_boo 4y ago
Disagree - the difference with now is the same difference between supervised and unsupervised machine learning.

hef19898 4y ago

just wait until the various ChatGPTs are training each other using the well "researched content" they spamming the internet with... That alone will kill search more thoroughly then ChatGPT ever could by facilitating search at Bing.

h4kor 4y ago
I think we just ignited the AI Poisoning bomb. Future system will have a harder time to be trained, because their datasets will be poisoned. Wrote up my thoughts about this a few weeks ago when ChatGPT started https://blog.libove.org/posts/ai-posioning/ https://blog.libove.org/posts/ai-posioning/
- hef19898 4y ago
  So future AI development will require proper training data created by humans, but have continuously harder time finding it because human creates become rarer and it gets harder to distinguish between human and AI created content? Well, I'll just go and ignore the internet for a decade or so until this thing blows over then...
  - h4kor 4y ago
    First page of google already is like that for some searches. I searched for a lot of non-tech topics and the top results are often totally incomprehensible text which contradict themselves in the next paragraph.

drewcon 4y ago

Eh, this feels different. There are some immediate utilities delivered from ChatGPT and Midjourney that feel like magic. Will they get over hyped? Sure. But is there a real kernel of something different there? I think so. Chatbots were just a worse way to fill out a form. NFTs we’re…where to even begin. But I’ve already used GPT to write thank you note and create a blog post, and I’ve used midjourney to create stock photos.

mjr00 4y ago
> But I’ve already used GPT to write thank you note and create a blog post, and I’ve used midjourney to create stock photos. Neither of those are searching for information, though, which is a very different use case. If 95% of the time GPT writes a great thank you note, that's very useful. If 95% of the time Midjourney gives me a good stock image, that's great! If 95% of the time GPT gives me a correct search result, that's horrible, because I now have to fact-check every time I do a search; I can no longer trust the output. Unfortunately Microsoft didn't realize this and may have just bought itself a $10 billion parlor trick machine.
- theRealMe 4y ago
  If you think that more than 95% of the google search results give you an accurate answer, then I’ve got a search result about bridges to sell you… Edit: and to add more so this response isn’t purely trash talking: plenty of us have already switched over to using ChatGPT/bing for our standard question answerer. It is far more efficient than getting back pages of search results and having to parse through garbage site after garbage site, scrolling through pages of ads and SEO optimized copy to look for the one nugget of info. The thing is, people will adjust their usage patterns for these bots just like we did for search engines. You don’t just 100% believe what the first webpage says. You look for other contextual information to determine if you believe it or not. That is a learned pattern to how we consume search engines and a similar thing will happen with LLMs. It’s like, if you were the first person to come into contact with fire, you reached your hand in and got burnt and then declared that fire is useless because it burns you. In either case, for LLMs, search engines, or fire, if you use them incorrectly then they won’t be useful. It’s up to you to use them correctly.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nsxwolf 4y ago
    Search doesn't give you answers, it gives you pages that are popular that may contain the answers. You have to look at those pages, consider the source, and develop your own intuition and heuristics to determine if you trust that information. It's a skill you develop over time. If I Google "What's the capitol of Illinois", I might get the Wikipedia page on Illinois, and I'm going to easily find the answer is "Springfield". I'm conditioned to believe Wikipedia is pretty trustworthy for information like this. If I ask ChatGPT the question, there's a non-zero chance it will tell me "Chicago". In the chatbot-as-search paradigm, I'm expected to just accept that error.

myth_drannon 4y ago

I stopped using google and almost don't use SO for programming related searches, my daily driver is chatGPT even when sometimes it gives bad answers. Chatbots were useless garbage from the get go and I hated them and NFT is, well NFT.

therealcamino 4y ago
Doesn't it bother you that it sounds just as confident when it's making stuff up as when it's accurately summarizing? Do you just think you can tell when it's wrong?
- scarface74 4y ago
  I can easily tell whether the code that ChatGPT writes for me is wrong by using an IDE. But it’s always closer to meeting my exact requirements than a Google search.
- myth_drannon 4y ago
  Sometimes I can tell it's wrong. But it faster to try and fail than searching for an answer on Google.

blihp 4y ago

Not necessarily. The big issue they've got to overcome is hallucination. If they can do that, these LLMs will have some staying power in providing search responses. If not, they'll still be useful creative tools. Another possibility is that the LLM just gets used as an NLU front-end to the search engine. In that case keyword search essentially goes away and semantic search allows people to actually ask questions rather than playing the keyword/phrase guessing game. Either way, it seems like the advertising game on the web is going to change.

nkozyra 4y ago

Every clunky step is a footstep in the path to something amazing. This may seem amazing but the more interesting thing is where it takes us in a year, 5 years, etc.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago

Disagree - the difference with now is the same difference between supervised and unsupervised machine learning.