9 ms·

It's debatable whether Google has truly lost the plot because of the "AI wars", but the moment the statement "Bing returns more sensible results than you" becom

It's debatable whether Google has truly lost the plot because of the "AI wars", but the moment the statement "Bing returns more sensible results than you" becomes verifiably true, it's... cause for concern? The approach that Google appears to have taken, which is to assume that the top-ranked part of its current search index is a sensible knowledge base, may have been true some years ago, but definitely isn't now: for whatever reasons, it's now 33% spam, 33% clickbait/propaganda, with the rest being equally divided between what could be called "truths" and miscellaneous detritus. To me, it seems that returning to the concept that search results should at least reflect a broad consensus of what is true is a necessary first step for Google. As part of that, learning to flag obvious trolling, clickbait and bad-faith content is paramount. And then, maybe then, they can start touting their LLM benefits. But until the realities of the Internet are taken into account (i.e.: it's 80% spam!), any "we offer automated answers!" play is doomed.

greg_V 2y ago
Oh it gets even better. The public has been hearing about AI this and AI that for over a year, but the existing use cases and deployment was confined to some super special niches like writing or the creative industries and programming. This is the first nation-scale deployment of the technology, running on Google's biggest and most profitable market in one of the most widely used internet services, and it's a shitshow. They can try manually fine tuning it, but all of the investors who have been throwing money at AI for the past year are now learning what this tech is like in the day-to-day, beyond just speculations, and it's looking... bad.
- PreInternet01 2y ago
  Yeah, the most likely take here is that Google's leadership truly did not recognize how utterly awful the quality of their flagship search index had become over the years. I mean, it explains a lot, but still... you're recruited using industry-leading practices out of an overflowing pool of abundant talent... and this is what you make of it? As the kids say: SMH!
  - lawn 2y ago
    > you're recruited using industry-leading practices out of an overflowing pool of abundant talent The ridiculous focus on on leet-code is surely industry-leading (because whatever Google does becomes industry-leading) but it sure isn't a good way to filter for competency.
    - chucke1992 2y ago
      I heard a funny quote that "today we have a new generation of developers who learnt how to pass interviews but don't know how code, and we have an old generation of developers who know how to code but forgot how to pass interviews. Or maybe never knew".
  - neilv 2y ago
    > you're recruited using industry-leading practices out of an overflowing pool of abundant talent... and this is what you make of it? That's exactly what to make of their frathouse nonsense. Google has gotten away with it because smart people and a sweet moment of opportunity 20-25 years ago gave them... uh, an inheritance. They can coast on that inherited monopoly position, and afford to pay 100 people to do the work of 1, use the company's position to push whatever they build onto the market, and then probably cancel it anyway, always going back to the inherited money machine from the ancestors. And then a lot of companies who didn't understand software development blindly tried to copy whatever the richest company they saw was doing, not understanding the real difference between the companies. While VC growth investment schemes let some of those companies get away with that, because they didn't have to be profitable, viable, responsible, nor legal, nor even have reasonably maintainable software. Poor Zoomers are now a generation separated from before the tech industry's cocaine bender. For whatever software jobs will be available to them, and with the density of nonsense "knowledge" that will be in the air, I don't know how they'll all learn non-dysfunctional practices.
- rm_-rf_slash 2y ago
  Plenty of people have been using ChatGPT for daily tasks for almost two years now. GPT-4 isn’t perfect but is otherwise really really good, and deftly handling use cases in my industry that would be impossible without it or however many billion dollars it would take to make GPT-4. From the black Nazis to the suggestion to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge b/c depression, it’s pretty clear that this fiasco isn’t an LLM problem, it’s a Google problem.
  - lupire 2y ago
    Because no one cares when ChatGPT gets things wrong.
- itronitron 2y ago
  It's especially embarrassing for Google considering they have indexed virtually all of the world's information for the last 25 years.
rurp 2y ago
Not only is the current internet 80% spam, it's rapidly approaching 99% thanks in large part to LLMs. At this point I would be shocked if Google had a solid plan for how to handle this going forward as the problem space gets more difficult.
- reustle 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
  - zogrodea 2y ago
    I do see incredibly weird kids content on YouTube sometimes (most likely bot generated?) which makes me think kids have been experiencing a worse internet before the rest of us have.
    - rchaud 2y ago
      Kids are far less knowledgeable about how modern software works because they don't know of an Internet that didn't have algorithmic recommendations. They have to be taught to do things like click "Not Interested/Don't recommend channel" to improve their feed. Dark pattern designs make this harder by hiding these options behind tiny 3-dot buttons.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  that's the part that scares me. I railed on someone's comment the other day about "indexes will come back into fashion" but the more I think about how much garbage has increased in just the past 2 to 3 years, I think I was wrong. Indexes and forums may be the only way to have a sane net where you can find things. Perhaps communities linking together in a ring like format, a "web ring" of sorts.
  - ysavir 2y ago
    What I've been wanting to see for a while now is a social-network based search engine: * No pages are indexed automatically. The only indexed pages are pages that users say are worth indexing. Probably have a browser add-on for a one button click that people can use. * You can friend/follow others * Your search results are a combination of your own indexed pages and the pages indexed by people in your network.
chucke1992 2y ago
the future is in-context search - basically not even going to google search to find something, but straight up doing that from your current window from any location. Basically a chat bot following you everywhere.
- latentsea 2y ago
  One that you can turn down, but not off.
freshpretzels 2y ago
> To me, it seems that returning to the concept that search results should at least reflect a broad consensus of what is true is a necessary first step for Google. As part of that, learning to flag obvious trolling, clickbait and bad-faith content is paramount. Who will decide what is obvious trolling and bad-faith content and how will they decide it? The problem they have is that search is only useful if it gives users what they are looking for. Their business model though is predicated on finding a way to introduce ads into the mix, and if they are also then trying to become arbiters of what truth people find and see, then all the conflicting goals will create a series of contradictory requirements. The search tools that usefully find what the user is looking for, with helpful suggestions, will win. Once users find that their experience is curated and that they are coerced by unelected arbiters and censors they will not trust the platform in question and someone else will get that market share.

greg_V 2y ago

Oh it gets even better. The public has been hearing about AI this and AI that for over a year, but the existing use cases and deployment was confined to some super special niches like writing or the creative industries and programming. This is the first nation-scale deployment of the technology, running on Google's biggest and most profitable market in one of the most widely used internet services, and it's a shitshow. They can try manually fine tuning it, but all of the investors who have been throwing money at AI for the past year are now learning what this tech is like in the day-to-day, beyond just speculations, and it's looking... bad.

PreInternet01 2y ago
Yeah, the most likely take here is that Google's leadership truly did not recognize how utterly awful the quality of their flagship search index had become over the years. I mean, it explains a lot, but still... you're recruited using industry-leading practices out of an overflowing pool of abundant talent... and this is what you make of it? As the kids say: SMH!
- lawn 2y ago
  > you're recruited using industry-leading practices out of an overflowing pool of abundant talent The ridiculous focus on on leet-code is surely industry-leading (because whatever Google does becomes industry-leading) but it sure isn't a good way to filter for competency.
  - chucke1992 2y ago
    I heard a funny quote that "today we have a new generation of developers who learnt how to pass interviews but don't know how code, and we have an old generation of developers who know how to code but forgot how to pass interviews. Or maybe never knew".
- neilv 2y ago
  > you're recruited using industry-leading practices out of an overflowing pool of abundant talent... and this is what you make of it? That's exactly what to make of their frathouse nonsense. Google has gotten away with it because smart people and a sweet moment of opportunity 20-25 years ago gave them... uh, an inheritance. They can coast on that inherited monopoly position, and afford to pay 100 people to do the work of 1, use the company's position to push whatever they build onto the market, and then probably cancel it anyway, always going back to the inherited money machine from the ancestors. And then a lot of companies who didn't understand software development blindly tried to copy whatever the richest company they saw was doing, not understanding the real difference between the companies. While VC growth investment schemes let some of those companies get away with that, because they didn't have to be profitable, viable, responsible, nor legal, nor even have reasonably maintainable software. Poor Zoomers are now a generation separated from before the tech industry's cocaine bender. For whatever software jobs will be available to them, and with the density of nonsense "knowledge" that will be in the air, I don't know how they'll all learn non-dysfunctional practices.
rm_-rf_slash 2y ago
Plenty of people have been using ChatGPT for daily tasks for almost two years now. GPT-4 isn’t perfect but is otherwise really really good, and deftly handling use cases in my industry that would be impossible without it or however many billion dollars it would take to make GPT-4. From the black Nazis to the suggestion to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge b/c depression, it’s pretty clear that this fiasco isn’t an LLM problem, it’s a Google problem.
- lupire 2y ago
  Because no one cares when ChatGPT gets things wrong.
itronitron 2y ago
It's especially embarrassing for Google considering they have indexed virtually all of the world's information for the last 25 years.

rurp 2y ago

Not only is the current internet 80% spam, it's rapidly approaching 99% thanks in large part to LLMs. At this point I would be shocked if Google had a solid plan for how to handle this going forward as the problem space gets more difficult.

reustle 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
- zogrodea 2y ago
  I do see incredibly weird kids content on YouTube sometimes (most likely bot generated?) which makes me think kids have been experiencing a worse internet before the rest of us have.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    Kids are far less knowledgeable about how modern software works because they don't know of an Internet that didn't have algorithmic recommendations. They have to be taught to do things like click "Not Interested/Don't recommend channel" to improve their feed. Dark pattern designs make this harder by hiding these options behind tiny 3-dot buttons.
EasyMark 2y ago
that's the part that scares me. I railed on someone's comment the other day about "indexes will come back into fashion" but the more I think about how much garbage has increased in just the past 2 to 3 years, I think I was wrong. Indexes and forums may be the only way to have a sane net where you can find things. Perhaps communities linking together in a ring like format, a "web ring" of sorts.
- ysavir 2y ago
  What I've been wanting to see for a while now is a social-network based search engine: * No pages are indexed automatically. The only indexed pages are pages that users say are worth indexing. Probably have a browser add-on for a one button click that people can use. * You can friend/follow others * Your search results are a combination of your own indexed pages and the pages indexed by people in your network.

chucke1992 2y ago

the future is in-context search - basically not even going to google search to find something, but straight up doing that from your current window from any location. Basically a chat bot following you everywhere.

latentsea 2y ago
One that you can turn down, but not off.

freshpretzels 2y ago

> To me, it seems that returning to the concept that search results should at least reflect a broad consensus of what is true is a necessary first step for Google. As part of that, learning to flag obvious trolling, clickbait and bad-faith content is paramount. Who will decide what is obvious trolling and bad-faith content and how will they decide it? The problem they have is that search is only useful if it gives users what they are looking for. Their business model though is predicated on finding a way to introduce ads into the mix, and if they are also then trying to become arbiters of what truth people find and see, then all the conflicting goals will create a series of contradictory requirements. The search tools that usefully find what the user is looking for, with helpful suggestions, will win. Once users find that their experience is curated and that they are coerced by unelected arbiters and censors they will not trust the platform in question and someone else will get that market share.