3 ms·

Maybe we need human curated content. If we rely on bots such as Google to recommend content, there is always going to be a lot of spam, a lot of noise, a lot of

Maybe we need human curated content. If we rely on bots such as Google to recommend content, there is always going to be a lot of spam, a lot of noise, a lot of SEO and a lot of AI generated content.

ReptileMan 3y ago
>Maybe we need human curated content. We can also name it altavista
xoac 3y ago
Too bad step one was to replace human curation with algorithms
- drewcoo 3y ago
  The thing is . . . human curation is an algorithm. And businesses tend to seek more profits, in part by cutting costs. So what's the obvious way to cut the cost of an algorithm that involves a bunch of slow, unreliable meat?
  - xpe 3y ago
    > human curation is an algorithm This phrase seems too muddled to be useful to me. An algorithm that aggregates preferences of people isn't "just" a "a finite sequence of mathematically rigorous instructions". If we run amok with the usage above (which I don't care for), what _isn't_ an algorithm? When everything is an algorithm, the word has no meaning.
podgorniy 3y ago
_Like reddit subreddit admins_? -- I agree with the idea. But I can't come up with any feasible model of motivations on how to implement it.
- palata 3y ago
  Something like RSS feeds, maybe? You can follow a blog because you trust the author. Then the blog may link another website that you then add to your feed. You could check the feeds of your friends, too. This all existed not so long ago.
palad1n 3y ago
Wasn't that what Yahoo used to do?
user3939382 3y ago
That’s where we started with Yahoo. They manually put websites into categories.
palata 3y ago
That was one of my first thoughts when LLMs started to get traction: "they have the potential to break Google... maybe it would bring back stuff like RSS and people following blogs/particular websites instead of following the Google results?".
Double_a_92 3y ago
My suspicion is that there aren't actually that many "good" websites. A manual approach would maybe not be completely unfeasible.
fireflash38 3y ago
Human curators like to get paid, and how do you think they will get paid? Especially if they work for a 'free' site? See: Wirecutter, a billion other 'review' sites, blogspam, etc.

Maybe we need human curated content. If we rely on bots such as Google to recommend content, there is always going to be a lot of spam, a lot of noise, a lot of SEO and a lot of AI generated content.

ReptileMan 3y ago

>Maybe we need human curated content. We can also name it altavista

xoac 3y ago

Too bad step one was to replace human curation with algorithms

drewcoo 3y ago
The thing is . . . human curation is an algorithm. And businesses tend to seek more profits, in part by cutting costs. So what's the obvious way to cut the cost of an algorithm that involves a bunch of slow, unreliable meat?
- xpe 3y ago
  > human curation is an algorithm This phrase seems too muddled to be useful to me. An algorithm that aggregates preferences of people isn't "just" a "a finite sequence of mathematically rigorous instructions". If we run amok with the usage above (which I don't care for), what _isn't_ an algorithm? When everything is an algorithm, the word has no meaning.

podgorniy 3y ago

_Like reddit subreddit admins_? -- I agree with the idea. But I can't come up with any feasible model of motivations on how to implement it.

palata 3y ago
Something like RSS feeds, maybe? You can follow a blog because you trust the author. Then the blog may link another website that you then add to your feed. You could check the feeds of your friends, too. This all existed not so long ago.

palad1n 3y ago

Wasn't that what Yahoo used to do?

user3939382 3y ago

That’s where we started with Yahoo. They manually put websites into categories.

palata 3y ago

That was one of my first thoughts when LLMs started to get traction: "they have the potential to break Google... maybe it would bring back stuff like RSS and people following blogs/particular websites instead of following the Google results?".

Double_a_92 3y ago

My suspicion is that there aren't actually that many "good" websites. A manual approach would maybe not be completely unfeasible.

fireflash38 3y ago

Human curators like to get paid, and how do you think they will get paid? Especially if they work for a 'free' site? See: Wirecutter, a billion other 'review' sites, blogspam, etc.