5 ms·

As AI generated content takes over the web, algorithmic search will become increasingly useless. In fact, for many things - like what to buy - it already is use

by yedava 3y ago

As AI generated content takes over the web, algorithmic search will become increasingly useless. In fact, for many things - like what to buy - it already is useless. Your best bet is asking your family/friend/neighborhood groups. If I had trillions like google does, I'd invest in hiring a whole bunch of humans to curate a search index that is actually useful. It's something a new player will never be able to scale up to.

nottorp 3y ago
Right, LLMs will change the world, we know. Algorithmic search has been useless for 5+ years. LLMs will just generate those spam pages faster, but they're already there.
- shuntress 3y ago
  It seems like it shouldn't be too hard for Google to create an AI filter that recognizes spam. They obviously have the training data. Even if they needed to manually label a bunch of it. The problem must be that they make too much money from the web pages that are just "500 words rephrasing the headline plus constantly-refreshing ads between every paragraph"
DinaCoder99 3y ago
> As AI generated content takes over the web, algorithmic search will become increasingly useless. This honestly seems unrelated to their poor search quality—hell, I'm even open to AI generated content for some queries. I blame catering to their clients and attempting to manipulate the content on the internet in the name of SEO for why I find useful results buried beneath products and ads.
kristofferR 3y ago
> Your best bet is asking your family/friend/neighborhood groups. Where should the ones you ask get information about the best options? It seems much more likely that someone bought something for the wrong reason (easiest to find, being fooled by fake reviews etc) and then are recommending it onward because they are reasonably happy with it.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  > Where should the ones you ask get information about the best options? You ask multiple acquaintances who've purchased different things, and focus on the specifics of their experiences with those products or services, and figure out whether those things would work for you. > and then are recommending it onward because they are reasonably happy with it. If they're reasonably happy with it, why wouldn't I be reasonably happy with it?
summerlight 3y ago
> I'd invest in hiring a whole bunch of humans to curate a search index that is actually useful. This is going to be a honey pot for the antitrust authorities. Google's main defense is that its ranking is done in an algorithmic way and human rating can affect the result only in an indirect manner following their rating guideline, which is carefully reviewed by lawyers. When you add some subjectivity from random human, they occasionally make some unfair mistake then it makes all the way through the media outlets, you know what's going to happen.
pixelfarmer 3y ago
> If I had trillions like google does, I'd invest in hiring a whole bunch of humans to curate a search index that is actually useful. Curated and sorted link lists were a big thing back in the early days of the WWW. So ... back to the roots, yes?
pavel_lishin 3y ago
> As AI generated content takes over the web, algorithmic search will become increasingly useless I'd love a way to search for things, and exclude anything created after 2020. Sure, it won't help me find reviews of new restaurants, or understand new products or programming languages. On the other hand, if I'm interested in reviews of a novel written in 1988, or how to solve some particular problem using calculus, that information isn't likely to go stale.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Haven't asked it for any fiction reviews, but ChatGPT is nothing less than a superpower for math-related questions. (If the last time you tried it was a year ago, try it again before posting something snarky in response.) Google definitely isn't needed for that.
tivert 3y ago
> If I had trillions like google does, I'd invest in hiring a whole bunch of humans to curate a search index that is actually useful. The temptation for a for-profit company to corrupt that index would be too great to resist forever. What modern capitalism really seems to do is produce cycles of improvement to gain marketshare followed by enshittification to cash in. The average of the cycle leans more towards the enshittified state than the improved state.

by yedava 3y ago

nottorp 3y ago

Right, LLMs will change the world, we know. Algorithmic search has been useless for 5+ years. LLMs will just generate those spam pages faster, but they're already there.

shuntress 3y ago
It seems like it shouldn't be too hard for Google to create an AI filter that recognizes spam. They obviously have the training data. Even if they needed to manually label a bunch of it. The problem must be that they make too much money from the web pages that are just "500 words rephrasing the headline plus constantly-refreshing ads between every paragraph"

DinaCoder99 3y ago

> As AI generated content takes over the web, algorithmic search will become increasingly useless. This honestly seems unrelated to their poor search quality—hell, I'm even open to AI generated content for some queries. I blame catering to their clients and attempting to manipulate the content on the internet in the name of SEO for why I find useful results buried beneath products and ads.

kristofferR 3y ago

> Your best bet is asking your family/friend/neighborhood groups. Where should the ones you ask get information about the best options? It seems much more likely that someone bought something for the wrong reason (easiest to find, being fooled by fake reviews etc) and then are recommending it onward because they are reasonably happy with it.

pavel_lishin 3y ago
> Where should the ones you ask get information about the best options? You ask multiple acquaintances who've purchased different things, and focus on the specifics of their experiences with those products or services, and figure out whether those things would work for you. > and then are recommending it onward because they are reasonably happy with it. If they're reasonably happy with it, why wouldn't I be reasonably happy with it?

summerlight 3y ago

> I'd invest in hiring a whole bunch of humans to curate a search index that is actually useful. This is going to be a honey pot for the antitrust authorities. Google's main defense is that its ranking is done in an algorithmic way and human rating can affect the result only in an indirect manner following their rating guideline, which is carefully reviewed by lawyers. When you add some subjectivity from random human, they occasionally make some unfair mistake then it makes all the way through the media outlets, you know what's going to happen.

pixelfarmer 3y ago

> If I had trillions like google does, I'd invest in hiring a whole bunch of humans to curate a search index that is actually useful. Curated and sorted link lists were a big thing back in the early days of the WWW. So ... back to the roots, yes?

pavel_lishin 3y ago

> As AI generated content takes over the web, algorithmic search will become increasingly useless I'd love a way to search for things, and exclude anything created after 2020. Sure, it won't help me find reviews of new restaurants, or understand new products or programming languages. On the other hand, if I'm interested in reviews of a novel written in 1988, or how to solve some particular problem using calculus, that information isn't likely to go stale.

CamperBob2 3y ago
Haven't asked it for any fiction reviews, but ChatGPT is nothing less than a superpower for math-related questions. (If the last time you tried it was a year ago, try it again before posting something snarky in response.) Google definitely isn't needed for that.

tivert 3y ago

> If I had trillions like google does, I'd invest in hiring a whole bunch of humans to curate a search index that is actually useful. The temptation for a for-profit company to corrupt that index would be too great to resist forever. What modern capitalism really seems to do is produce cycles of improvement to gain marketshare followed by enshittification to cash in. The average of the cycle leans more towards the enshittified state than the improved state.