3 ms·
The article made me question Google search even more. « we tested the feature extensively before launch. This included robust red-teaming efforts, evaluations
by Oras 2y ago
The article made me question Google search even more.
« we tested the feature extensively before launch. This included robust red-teaming efforts, evaluations with samples of typical user queries and tests on a proportion of search traffic to see how it performed »
Then she explains that:
«We’ve also seen nonsensical new searches, seemingly aimed at producing erroneous results.»
So, the red-teaming didn't think of prompt injections or how to identify fake results? If that's the case, wouldn't that mean all results from Google searches are questionable, considering how much crap coming out of SEO-farming websites?
- prepend 2y agoRegarding SEO stuff, I cynically think Google knows about it, but doesn’t do anything because it would reduce revenue. A friend told me that google estimates about 30% of its clicks are fraud, accident, waste, etc. But they have no incentive to fix because they make money off every wrong ad shown and every accidental or fraudulent click. So SEO-farming sites make Google money. If I have to click on different ads and multiple garbage sites, that’s more lucrative than just seeing a good result and skipping all the ads and blargh. Remember when “I feel lucky” was helpful? I can’t wait for some lawsuit discovery to produce the emails where google sees red team results for bad ads and decides to keep them because of revenue. This stuff doesn’t make google money, so they’re happy to cut it.
- greg_V 2y agoRe: the 30% fraud figure. An interesting book just came out last month that speculates on the amount of fraud / wasted clicks / impressions in the ecosystem https://dl.bookfunnel.com/6kwmi0qlsq https://dl.bookfunnel.com/6kwmi0qlsq TL;DR it's pretty damning, but since ultimately advertising is shown to drive revenue, the whole problem is priced in so to speak.