3 ms·

I suggest you go to google/bing/whatever floats your boat and search "it will only get better" then filter results earlier than 2010. Things that I just found t

I suggest you go to google/bing/whatever floats your boat and search "it will only get better" then filter results earlier than 2010. Things that I just found that were going to "only get better": - Google search - Web browsers - Web content - Internet Explorer - Music - Flight process at Mosul airport - Star Wars

dist-epoch 1y ago
Google search is better. It's just that now you ask the LLM what you want to find out.
- zanellato19 1y ago
  Google search is absolutely not better.
  - konart 1y ago
    Depends on a perspective though.
- iammrpayments 1y ago
  I was going to say it was maybe better for advertisers but the auction has gone up and the dashboard has much less data due to legal restrictions
Philpax 1y ago
Those are worse due to economic and cultural reasons, not technological reasons. The technology itself will only get better. (Also, implying that music has gotten worse is a boomer-ass take. It might not be to your liking, but there's more of it than ever before, and new sonic frontiers are being discovered every day.)
x187463 1y ago
None of those have a quantifiable definition of 'better'. The current range of AI models have very easily measured metrics.
- internetter 1y ago
  Very much disagree. Current AI benchmarks are quite arbitrary as evidenced by the ability of a model to be fitted to a particular benchmark. Like the closest benchmark to objectivity is “does it answer this question factually” and benchmarks like that are just as failable really because who decides what questions we ask? The same struggles happen when we try to measure human intelligence. The more complex the algorithm the harder it is to quantify because there are so many parameters. I could easily contrive some “search engine benchmark”, but it wouldn’t be that useful because it’s only adherent to my own subjective definition of what it means for a search engine to be good.
Terretta 1y ago
> Star Wars And then you watched Mandalorian and Andor? Jokes aside, Google Search results are worse thanks to so much web content being just ad scaffolding, but the interesting one here is music. Music is typically imagined to be its best at whatever ages one most listened to it, partly trained in and partly thanks to meanings/memories/nostalgia attached to it. As a consequence, for most everyone, more recent music seems to be “getting worse”! That said, and back to the SEO effect on Google Results, I'd argue mass distribution/advertising/marketing has resulted in most audio airtime getting objectively* less complex, but if one turns off the mass distribution, and looks around, there seems to be plenty of just as good — even building on what came before — music to be found. * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387975100_Decoding_Musical_Evolution_Through_Network_Science https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387975100_Decoding_...
Dardalus 1y ago
Are you really trying to say that these models aren't going to get better from here? You think that the insane progress of the last 5 years just stops right here?

dist-epoch 1y ago

Google search is better. It's just that now you ask the LLM what you want to find out.

zanellato19 1y ago
Google search is absolutely not better.
- konart 1y ago
  Depends on a perspective though.
iammrpayments 1y ago
I was going to say it was maybe better for advertisers but the auction has gone up and the dashboard has much less data due to legal restrictions

Philpax 1y ago

Those are worse due to economic and cultural reasons, not technological reasons. The technology itself will only get better. (Also, implying that music has gotten worse is a boomer-ass take. It might not be to your liking, but there's more of it than ever before, and new sonic frontiers are being discovered every day.)

x187463 1y ago

None of those have a quantifiable definition of 'better'. The current range of AI models have very easily measured metrics.

internetter 1y ago
Very much disagree. Current AI benchmarks are quite arbitrary as evidenced by the ability of a model to be fitted to a particular benchmark. Like the closest benchmark to objectivity is “does it answer this question factually” and benchmarks like that are just as failable really because who decides what questions we ask? The same struggles happen when we try to measure human intelligence. The more complex the algorithm the harder it is to quantify because there are so many parameters. I could easily contrive some “search engine benchmark”, but it wouldn’t be that useful because it’s only adherent to my own subjective definition of what it means for a search engine to be good.

Terretta 1y ago

> Star Wars And then you watched Mandalorian and Andor? Jokes aside, Google Search results are worse thanks to so much web content being just ad scaffolding, but the interesting one here is music. Music is typically imagined to be its best at whatever ages one most listened to it, partly trained in and partly thanks to meanings/memories/nostalgia attached to it. As a consequence, for most everyone, more recent music seems to be “getting worse”! That said, and back to the SEO effect on Google Results, I'd argue mass distribution/advertising/marketing has resulted in most audio airtime getting objectively* less complex, but if one turns off the mass distribution, and looks around, there seems to be plenty of just as good — even building on what came before — music to be found. * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387975100_Decoding_Musical_Evolution_Through_Network_Science https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387975100_Decoding_...

Dardalus 1y ago

Are you really trying to say that these models aren't going to get better from here? You think that the insane progress of the last 5 years just stops right here?