Thread

1. rickdeckard · 1790071699 · focus · HN ↗

   Somehow a homemade problem for Google.

   I never asked them to waste additional resources by injecting my blunt keyword-query into an AI-cluster and guesstimate a well-formed article from that.

   But here I am, with (elder) relatives sending me Google search-results on topics like they are proper articles...

   1. KronisLV · 1790071941 · focus · HN ↗

      > blunt keyword-query into an AI-cluster and guesstimate a well-formed article

      For quick reference, sometimes it’s pretty good! The problem is that obviously you can’t dedicate a lot of compute or additional tools for checking those answers so most of it can’t really be trusted.

      1. consp · 1790072331 · focus · HN ↗

         > so most of it can’t really be trusted.

         And yet they is not how it is used, and is trusted beyond sanity.

      2. _joel · 1790072384 · focus · HN ↗

         A quick reference shouldn't require me to have to check the quick reference for hallucinations.
      3. intended · 1790072689 · focus · HN ↗

         Not mention that this changes how information is found and how it is created.

         The sometimes convenience comes alongside ejecting society from the previous system of figuring out what is true and false.

         That was a system that was already failing, but we may have gotten on top of. Now we have one that is simply alien and inimical to any human scale solutions to staying ahead of it.

         Generation capacity simply outstrips verification capacity, and with search summaries taking over links to the actual sites, the funding/incentives to run sites and publish content is removed.

         The curtain call of the era of the open internet, and the opening act of the LLM mediated web, isn’t a show I am excited to have front row seats to.

      4. Zanfa · 1790072810 · focus · HN ↗

         Google's search AI clearly trades accuracy for speed and it shows. It frequently draws the exact opposite conclusions from the sources it references.
   2. JKCalhoun · 1790073763 · focus · HN ↗

      "Somehow a homemade problem for Google."

      Wow, I thought you were going to talk about selling ads and how that has made search shite.

      1. lelanthran · 1790074944 · focus · HN ↗

         Google always sold ads. Google weren't always shite, though.

         They, themselves, sorta proved that a good product could become dominant with ads and without being shite.

         1. JKCalhoun · 1790082865 · focus · HN ↗

            I'm allowing that there is a delay between selling ads and the rising tide of SEO enshitification that follows. Money is still at the root of the decline of the internet.
      2. rickdeckard · 1790075241 · focus · HN ↗

         well, Selling ads in general wasn't a problem 15 years ago.

         The pre-AI enshitification-part where they realized that worse search-results means more searches so more ad-revenue is another story.

         If they wouldn't have done that, they could be the proof that a well-maintained search-engine is still better than a LLM.

         But now this will never happen, as no-one will be willing to give up that additional search revenue while overall usage is going down...

      3. knollimar · 1790075370 · focus · HN ↗

         Or degrading their keyword operators to be more mobile friendly
   3. oefrha · 1790074654 · focus · HN ↗

      It’s a “solved” problem. On more dubious topics, “proper articles” these days also more often than not come from AI clusters, so you might as well just read the Google one.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.