this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
1533 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59358 readers
5233 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

If someone has put in the work to find and feed the quality content to LLMs, why couldn't that same effort have been invested in Google Search?

I'd rather a world where 10 companies can compete with google search with AIs, than where they dump money into a monopoly.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

If you don't feel like discussing this and won't do anything more than deliberately miss the point, you don't have to reply to me at all.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

The content is not unavailable to search engines. AI LLMs simply are better at surfacing it. I don't know what point you were trying to make that I missed, it wasn't on purpose, I assure you.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

AI LLMs simply are better at surfacing it

Ok, but how exactly? Is there some magical emergent property of LLMs that guides them to filter out the garbage from the quality content?

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah. Money. Google has an incentive to make search results less accurate to get you to click around and interact with more ads. As it currently stands, AI models aren't inserting advertisements; though I suspect that's only a matter of time.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And that's more or less what I was aiming for, so we're back at square one. What you wrote is in line with my first comment:

it is a weak compliment for AI, and more of a criticism of the current web search engines

The point is that there isn't something that makes AI inherently superior to ordinary search engines. (Personally I haven't found AI to be superior at all, but that's a different topic.) The difference in quality is mainly a consequence of some corporate fuckery to wring out more money from the investors and/or advertisers and/or users at the given moment. AI is good (according to you) just because search engines suck.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That's kind of how things work you know.

AI is good (according to you) just because search engines suck.

Yeah, would you say the original iPhone is any good today? No. Because everything got better. That's how things work. AI of today, in 20 years is probably going to be considered to suck.

That's how that works. When things are better than other things, we consider them good.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)