4 ms·
It's obvious that people would flood Google with generated content. But it's hard to tell if it would kill Google or somehow make Google works better. There's c
by namelosw 3y ago
It's obvious that people would flood Google with generated content. But it's hard to tell if it would kill Google or somehow make Google works better. There's certain dynamics to the game and nobody can say for sure.
As for why it might not make Google worse, just think about YouTube algorithms:
1. One good video is substantially better than hundreds of bad videos, or thousands even.
2. Clickbait works in terms of getting people to click on your video, but if you don't deliver what the clickbait promised people would leave and it would hurt your stats.
3. Generating large amounts of videos may be profitable because it's like collecting peanuts with automation, but that would never reach the mainstream audience like Mr. Beast.
This is because the algorithm promotes videos that are frequently clicked and fully watched. Generated or not, the content must be good enough to be watched through, in order to please the algorithm.
You see, there are a lot of bootleg versions of Stackoverflow, but many of them are terrible. Some of them get ranked because they're still helpful (to the 80% majority of programmers, probably not for the HN elites). We can imagine there would certainly LLM generated versions of those, but very likely with better quality. Generated or not, it's still an arms race to generate more helpful and higher quality content to get traffic.
Also, HN people have been complaining about how the quality of Google degrade over time. It might be Google's fault, but I believe there's another important factor that hurts search engines as a whole - There are too many walled gardens nowadays: Instagram, Discord, and now Twitter, etc. Value information is hiding behind those, which would certainly make search engines less helpful over time.
For example, when I play not very popular video games I wish there are wikis or guides for that. In the old days, I know I can find most of the information in several forums and check the top posts. Now I need to go through Discord and scroll through casual chats and wonder if I missed something.
With LLMs, people would likely be draining that information from walled gardens and compiling them into helpful insights.
Again, there are a lot of dynamics, and it's hard to tell how things would turn out. Maybe it would kill Google and possibly the old Web, maybe it would make the Web great again.
- acomjean 3y agoI think it makes it worse. There is only so much it can index. I was searching a municipal website that had a bunch of pdfs. Instead of downloading them I'll I figured I'd sure the "site:__" to look through them. It didn't work. It seemed to index only 3 of those files. sigh. One of the appeals of using "chat bot" is you get an answer without all the ad crap the web delivers. I think thats the appeal of stackoverflow and Redit.. Using AI to make the web worse is something...
- rchaud 3y agoGoogle will index whatever is generated in your sitemap.xml file. The "site:" filter isn't going to show them all.
- packetlost 3y ago> Clickbait works in terms of getting people to click on your video, but if you don't deliver what the clickbait promised people would leave and it would hurt your stats. This is an interesting take. Google can only "reward" videos that people watch for longer because they own the site. That is, they can tell when people leave. For a good chunk of sites, they still can because of Google's ad market share, but for a really sizeable chunk of sites that isn't the case. For like 80% of users, they also still can because they own Chrome. I'm not sure I like the idea of allowing Google to reward sites that use their ads or browser monopoly in their search algorithm.
- candiodari 3y agoUnfortunately the worst of the worst clickbait is the ads. Google is never going to do anything about those. Hell, worse videos probably have better click through rates because people will click anything to get out of such a video. Plus, I've never once seen enshittification reward better quality. I highly doubt this will be the first time.
- scarface_74 3y agoEven if I’m not using Chrome, if I search for a term and the first link isn’t helpful, I would quickly go back to the search results and click another link. Google should be able to get a signal from that
- tacheiordache 3y agoYes, they get the signal. Let me remind you, Google want you to see more ads so the sooner you find your information the less time you linger around. If they use that signal, their best interest is to bury your optimal result further down.
- tacocataco 3y agoEnshitification of your product seems like a bad idea.