• Tiral@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Mine said, “I don’t know what you’re taking about, Big Papa”. She wouldn’t lie to me!

  • CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Google just, talks to me now? I’m not searching technical stuff I have an old habit of just plugging random subjects or ideas into a search bar and seeing what the internet thinks not for any reason other than I find it interesting, I’ve been doing this since the Ask Jeeves days it’s just a thing I do at this point. But now Google wants to talk to me about those ideas or topics instead of showing me what the internet at large is saying/thinking about them. It’s definitely no longer a tool for finding new or unique ways of seeing or thinking about things.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Today I searched for a CD ISO filename on Google. Just the first part of the ISO name. I knew it was an ISO for Win 7, just not which one. I wanted to find a site that had the ISOs in an archival listing so I knew which version it was.

    Google gave me zero results except AI telling me what I already knew. It’s a filename.

    Zero.

    Google is garbage. Google search is dead.

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon: ChatGPT’s search function is substantially better than Google’s AI search. And Google’s AI search is, frankly, so broken that it can barely be considered functional in some situations.

    I think part of the problem is that Google is asking its AI to serve two fundamentally conflicting purposes. It doesn’t just want an LLM that does LLM things. It wants an LLM that also functions as a marketing engine. And that makes sense from Google’s perspective because Google is, at its core, an advertising company that happens to operate some enormously successful technology platforms. Advertising is how Google makes the overwhelming majority of its money, so naturally it wants its AI to become part of that ecosystem.

    The problem is that optimizing an AI for advertising inevitably compromises its usefulness as an information system. The AI’s job should be to determine what information is most relevant to the user’s question and present it as accurately and efficiently as possible. An advertising platform has an entirely different objective: determine what can be sold, who will pay for access to the user, and how to maximize engagement and revenue. Those objectives can overlap, but they are not the same objective.

    And this gets even more interesting when you consider what increasingly capable AI systems are supposed to become. The fundamental value of an LLM, AGI, or whatever comes after AGI is that it can act as an intermediary between a human being and an enormous body of information, reasoning about what the human actually needs rather than simply presenting whatever happens to be profitable to show them.

    You can certainly put advertisements around an AI. You can even have an AI identify products or services that are relevant to a user. But the moment the AI itself becomes financially incentivized to favor one answer, product, company, or piece of information over another, you have fundamentally compromised the thing that makes the AI useful in the first place.

    A calculator doesn’t work better because the person who made it gets paid when you enter a particular number. A search engine shouldn’t give you a different answer because someone paid it to prefer that answer. And an intelligent system certainly shouldn’t be quietly optimizing its reasoning around whoever is willing to pay for access to your attention.

    The irony is that the more capable AI becomes, the less compatible that model should be with traditional advertising. Advertising depends on controlling what people see. Intelligence depends on being able to determine what is actually relevant. Those are fundamentally different incentives.

    As usual, the limiting factor may not be the technology itself. It may simply be our inability to resist turning every useful invention into another machine for extracting money from one another.

  • CarpalTunnelButt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Why does the author assume I’m dumber than them. I basically never use AI. It’s stupid and pulls shit from the Internet and just assumes it’s correct. I, on the other hand, have media literacy and can figure out which info is useful and likely accurate myself. It’s like asking a chronic liar a question. It’s a waste of time when we have DDG and a few brain cells.

  • galaxy_nova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    The amount of times I’ve gone to a top ranked website by duckduckgo and read the first paragraph only to go “oh this is just more slop” is ridiculous. I have to append reddit to every search to get anything useful and even then it could be bots.

  • robador51@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    The article mentions but then bypasses how the ai summaries link out to aggregation websites which seem to be showing AI summaries themselves, which in turn link out to other sources than the original. The problem is therefore not only google’s ai summaries, but also the ease that ai enables these other sites to publish with the speed they do (fully automatic probably), and they’re probably optimized to be featured in ai summaries.

    That’s not a fight they’re going to win by writing higher quality content, and it’s only going to get worse. I’m not sure what remediation there is.

    It really sucks.

      • blackwall@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I (unfortunately) work in an industry where companies used to live or die by the amount of website traffics they received. 5 years ago the goal was to write the best content for your users, abiding by the EEAT principle - Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness. Basically good advice given by proven experts. Since the rise of LLMs it’s like we don’t even consider human users anymore. All content is geared towards having your brand show up in AI search. The content itself is all AI generated drivel, but no one cares about that as long as ChatGPT mentions your name when asked about a related topic.

        Edit: to answer your question more directly, websites exist for users. Your website only gets users if it appears in search. It used to be that higher quality content was the way to do that, but now that search is largely driven by gen AI, the quality of the content is less important than the specific structure and “freshness” (i.e. how recently it was published) that AI platforms prefer.

      • robador51@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think because of the instant gratification a summary gives. It’s a bit like how spoilers work, no need to watch that movie anymore of you know all the plot twists. No matter how beautiful the camera work is 🤷‍♂️