4 ms·

Google Search Is Dead, etc.

8 points by wslh 2y ago

chresko 2y ago
With 82% market share and 8.5B searches/day, I suppose this depends on how you define Goole Search being 'dead.'
imiric 2y ago
> [...] the era of selling people’s private data and cloud computing-based Wall Gardens, in general, is coming to a close. On the contrary, it will only become larger and more profitable. The general public will jump at the chance to use AI assistants run by corporations. They already enjoy their products in exchange for their data and attention (for "free"), so sharing their personal thoughts is just another step. In turn, advertisers will pay big money to get access to this data, and plug their ads in deeply personal conversations, pushed by someone they trust. "Oh, I'm sorry you feel that way, Brian. Have you considered going to X to buy Y?" > Web3 entrepreneurs are busy leveraging blockchain, crypto, and AI to fix it, and they will. Soon, we will turn the tables on Big Tech, and the Goliaths will have to pay us to participate in their marketing schemes if we so allow. It sounds like this person is part of a tech bubble, and can't see the forest for the trees. The average person has no idea, nor cares about Web3. The Web3 scene is full of crypto bros who think that if only the right technology comes along, it will disrupt the current web. They're focused so much on the tech, that they don't realize that the average person doesn't care about privacy, and just wants to use a product for "free". The way forward will not be solved by tech alone. It requires massive efforts to educate internet users about what they're signing up for, and then providing a better experience that they can't get elsewhere. So far, most attempts to disrupt the current state of the web have received minimal traction. At some point you just have to accept that the current web is not going anywhere, and that your alternative products will never overtake it. And that that's fine. Niche products can still be successful, and provide value to people who use them.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  > It sounds like this person is part of a tech bubble, and can't see the forest for the trees. I think the original article is correct, but not for the reasons they think. You are quite correct that the average folk doesn't give a damn about the tech bubble peculiarities and absolutely don't care about trading their piracy ("like I have anything to hide lol" is quite an oft sentiment I heard). I agree with you there. But... the average folk don't have infinite patience, or money for that matter. They don't know tech, sure, but at the same time they are getting sick of being milked for subscriptions for literally anything and everything -- all the video streaming services, ChatGPT, cable still exists, internet at home, mobile internet... delivery services for gods' sakes!!! They want you to pay a subscription and the first 10 deliveries for the month are free. There are other examples, many of them. You don't have to be a tech guru to at point exclaim "I am sick of all that streaming crap. They think they can get away with everything! I'll pirate movies! You know any good sites?" -- and I have in fact witnessed non-tech-savvy people exclaiming exactly that. Of course all of that is very different compared to an actual useful AI -- if we ever get that. I am quite sure that people would gladly shell out for that. But the general point still stands; the current desperate spasms of the internet darling companies -- that FINALLY realized they have to start monetizing or investor money will dry out -- will end only with their deaths (or at least severe restructurings). Again, people don't want to be milked for every little thing. You don't have to have an university degree for that.
  - imiric 2y ago
    I partly agree, but if people don't want to be milked for everything, what makes you think that they would be willing to pay for things they get for "free" today (e.g. paying for search or social media, as the article is implying)? My point is that most people are perfectly happy with giving up their privacy in exchange for getting a service without paying. If we want more people to use privacy-focused alternatives, we first need to educate them about the implications of what they're giving up, and even then I suspect that most people would be fine with the transaction. For example, Netflix's ad-supported tier has been very successful[1]. If anything, services are moving from a subscription-based model to an ad-supported one, because it's both more lucrative and people prefer the experience to paying for a subscription. So I wouldn't be surprised if all subscription services also adopt this same model. If nothing else offering it as an option for people who don't want to "be milked" financially, but are fine with being milked for their data and attention. Even more egregious are cases where you both pay for a subscription, but also get served ads, of which we've seen many examples. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/netflix-ad-supported-tier-40-million-monthly-users-rcna152463 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/netflix-ad-su...
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > The average person has no idea, nor cares about Web3. The Web3 scene is full of crypto bros who think that if only the right technology comes along, it will disrupt the current web. They're focused so much on the tech, that they don't realize that the average person doesn't care about privacy, and just wants to use a product for "free". The problem is that they're focused on getting rich or getting richer, not on the tech. The tech is only interesting to them if it offers a method of early investors being set up for a lifetime (or eternity) of completely passive income. I'm working in peer-to-peer, and everything that I find within the web2/cryptosphere incidental to the problems I'm working on is hopelessly focused on convincing people to trade cash for new tokens. You do find a nice idea or implementation here and there, but mainly you only see what a concept would look like as the disguise for a con. > the average person doesn't care about privacy, and just wants to use a product for "free". This is a lie. The average person cares about privacy far more than the average programmer who spends all day trying to come up with new ways to subvert privacy. I've literally never had a conversation with a "normal person" about privacy, especially in the US, where it wasn't an extreme priority for them. They just 1) aren't technically savvy, and often don't understand that since computers can cheaply focus on everybody at the same time, everybody is worth paying attention to, and they 2) are shrewd enough to know that if there are truly private options, they'll be quickly eliminated or subverted by governments. Bragging about not being interesting enough to pay attention to is just a way for some incurious people to signal to the people around them that they're not hiding any dirty secrets. There's also the instinct to be protected by the herd: if I'm doing the same thing as millions of other people ("buying IBM"), they're not going to hurt all of us. It's a very dumb instinct to apply especially to technology working at scale, but also even to entities like massive corporations, billionaires and states who will kill you without even noticing. One may not think they're going to round up everyone who has ever read a particular book, or has criticized a president even in conversation with their cousin in a bar, or everyone who ever supported a political party that won the last election, but it's happened many times, all over the modern world, using index cards, punchcards, and handwritten lists compiled at local police stations from networks of informants, and handed up the chain to death squads. Pol Pot even got down to everyone who wore glasses being a potential source of trouble. You say it's not a tech problem, it's an education problem. I say it's neither, it's a political problem.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
caseyy 2y ago
There wasn't ever a ChatGPT or Perplexity.ai moment for most technical tasks. I'm always evaluating these models to make sure that the people I interview remotely for my company don't cheat. There are certain questions the models are good with, but they will often produce very predictable answers (a lot of lists for open-ended questions). On the other hand, for many specific technical questions, they will predictably give wrong answers. Perplexity.ai will fail to find some of the same content that Google would if they indexed the same blog or documentation. Both ChatGPT and Perplexity are horrendous at reasoning within day-to-day knowledge of any senior knowledge worker, there just aren't enough parameters. Therefore, they often can't help with questions in that context.
fuzzfactor 2y ago
Definitely not dead, it's smelling a little unpleasant but that's probably early onset dementia. Interesting if that's occurring in proportion to AI.

8 points by wslh 2y ago

With 82% market share and 8.5B searches/day, I suppose this depends on how you define Goole Search being 'dead.'

> [...] the era of selling people’s private data and cloud computing-based Wall Gardens, in general, is coming to a close. On the contrary, it will only become larger and more profitable. The general public will jump at the chance to use AI assistants run by corporations. They already enjoy their products in exchange for their data and attention (for "free"), so sharing their personal thoughts is just another step. In turn, advertisers will pay big money to get access to this data, and plug their ads in deeply personal conversations, pushed by someone they trust. "Oh, I'm sorry you feel that way, Brian. Have you considered going to X to buy Y?" > Web3 entrepreneurs are busy leveraging blockchain, crypto, and AI to fix it, and they will. Soon, we will turn the tables on Big Tech, and the Goliaths will have to pay us to participate in their marketing schemes if we so allow. It sounds like this person is part of a tech bubble, and can't see the forest for the trees. The average person has no idea, nor cares about Web3. The Web3 scene is full of crypto bros who think that if only the right technology comes along, it will disrupt the current web. They're focused so much on the tech, that they don't realize that the average person doesn't care about privacy, and just wants to use a product for "free". The way forward will not be solved by tech alone. It requires massive efforts to educate internet users about what they're signing up for, and then providing a better experience that they can't get elsewhere. So far, most attempts to disrupt the current state of the web have received minimal traction. At some point you just have to accept that the current web is not going anywhere, and that your alternative products will never overtake it. And that that's fine. Niche products can still be successful, and provide value to people who use them.

pdimitar 2y ago
> It sounds like this person is part of a tech bubble, and can't see the forest for the trees. I think the original article is correct, but not for the reasons they think. You are quite correct that the average folk doesn't give a damn about the tech bubble peculiarities and absolutely don't care about trading their piracy ("like I have anything to hide lol" is quite an oft sentiment I heard). I agree with you there. But... the average folk don't have infinite patience, or money for that matter. They don't know tech, sure, but at the same time they are getting sick of being milked for subscriptions for literally anything and everything -- all the video streaming services, ChatGPT, cable still exists, internet at home, mobile internet... delivery services for gods' sakes!!! They want you to pay a subscription and the first 10 deliveries for the month are free. There are other examples, many of them. You don't have to be a tech guru to at point exclaim "I am sick of all that streaming crap. They think they can get away with everything! I'll pirate movies! You know any good sites?" -- and I have in fact witnessed non-tech-savvy people exclaiming exactly that. Of course all of that is very different compared to an actual useful AI -- if we ever get that. I am quite sure that people would gladly shell out for that. But the general point still stands; the current desperate spasms of the internet darling companies -- that FINALLY realized they have to start monetizing or investor money will dry out -- will end only with their deaths (or at least severe restructurings). Again, people don't want to be milked for every little thing. You don't have to have an university degree for that.
- imiric 2y ago
  I partly agree, but if people don't want to be milked for everything, what makes you think that they would be willing to pay for things they get for "free" today (e.g. paying for search or social media, as the article is implying)? My point is that most people are perfectly happy with giving up their privacy in exchange for getting a service without paying. If we want more people to use privacy-focused alternatives, we first need to educate them about the implications of what they're giving up, and even then I suspect that most people would be fine with the transaction. For example, Netflix's ad-supported tier has been very successful[1]. If anything, services are moving from a subscription-based model to an ad-supported one, because it's both more lucrative and people prefer the experience to paying for a subscription. So I wouldn't be surprised if all subscription services also adopt this same model. If nothing else offering it as an option for people who don't want to "be milked" financially, but are fine with being milked for their data and attention. Even more egregious are cases where you both pay for a subscription, but also get served ads, of which we've seen many examples. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/netflix-ad-supported-tier-40-million-monthly-users-rcna152463 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/netflix-ad-su...
pessimizer 2y ago
> The average person has no idea, nor cares about Web3. The Web3 scene is full of crypto bros who think that if only the right technology comes along, it will disrupt the current web. They're focused so much on the tech, that they don't realize that the average person doesn't care about privacy, and just wants to use a product for "free". The problem is that they're focused on getting rich or getting richer, not on the tech. The tech is only interesting to them if it offers a method of early investors being set up for a lifetime (or eternity) of completely passive income. I'm working in peer-to-peer, and everything that I find within the web2/cryptosphere incidental to the problems I'm working on is hopelessly focused on convincing people to trade cash for new tokens. You do find a nice idea or implementation here and there, but mainly you only see what a concept would look like as the disguise for a con. > the average person doesn't care about privacy, and just wants to use a product for "free". This is a lie. The average person cares about privacy far more than the average programmer who spends all day trying to come up with new ways to subvert privacy. I've literally never had a conversation with a "normal person" about privacy, especially in the US, where it wasn't an extreme priority for them. They just 1) aren't technically savvy, and often don't understand that since computers can cheaply focus on everybody at the same time, everybody is worth paying attention to, and they 2) are shrewd enough to know that if there are truly private options, they'll be quickly eliminated or subverted by governments. Bragging about not being interesting enough to pay attention to is just a way for some incurious people to signal to the people around them that they're not hiding any dirty secrets. There's also the instinct to be protected by the herd: if I'm doing the same thing as millions of other people ("buying IBM"), they're not going to hurt all of us. It's a very dumb instinct to apply especially to technology working at scale, but also even to entities like massive corporations, billionaires and states who will kill you without even noticing. One may not think they're going to round up everyone who has ever read a particular book, or has criticized a president even in conversation with their cousin in a bar, or everyone who ever supported a political party that won the last election, but it's happened many times, all over the modern world, using index cards, punchcards, and handwritten lists compiled at local police stations from networks of informants, and handed up the chain to death squads. Pol Pot even got down to everyone who wore glasses being a potential source of trouble. You say it's not a tech problem, it's an education problem. I say it's neither, it's a political problem.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

caseyy 2y ago

There wasn't ever a ChatGPT or Perplexity.ai moment for most technical tasks. I'm always evaluating these models to make sure that the people I interview remotely for my company don't cheat. There are certain questions the models are good with, but they will often produce very predictable answers (a lot of lists for open-ended questions). On the other hand, for many specific technical questions, they will predictably give wrong answers. Perplexity.ai will fail to find some of the same content that Google would if they indexed the same blog or documentation. Both ChatGPT and Perplexity are horrendous at reasoning within day-to-day knowledge of any senior knowledge worker, there just aren't enough parameters. Therefore, they often can't help with questions in that context.

fuzzfactor 2y ago

Definitely not dead, it's smelling a little unpleasant but that's probably early onset dementia. Interesting if that's occurring in proportion to AI.