• Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    42 minutes ago

    More Perfect Union did a video on Google’s descent into evil. I think it’s this one

    TLDW: Once Google pivoted from being a search service to an advertising agency, it was motivated to keep users from hyperlinking away from Google, and so offered summaries and alternatives controlled by Alphabet that allowed it to keep offering you ads.

    So this AI service is just a natural iteration.

  • Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It’s a self defeating strategy as more people turn to ai, less content gets produced so ai becomes static.

    I truly believe the token model will kill AI, it will become too expensive

    • iocase@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It already is too expensive and adding more compute doesn’t make it cheaper lol it just causes a race to the bottom among data center providers and an eventual crash there too.

  • Evotech@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Honestly I think Google is pretty fucked in the long term

    Nobody google anymore. They just ask chat

  • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    115
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The death of Stackoverflow is one of these events where the site has been completely killed by AI and yet its contents is completely necessary for AI to know about solving programming problems. Its death will mark the end of AIs ability to learn how to solve programming issues. Its cannibalizing itself in the process, as it destroys its sources it destroys its own ability to learn.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      It’s not just that, it’s shitting where it eats. People are using it to fill the internet with disinformation, then it trains itself on it’s own disinformation, and breeds even worse disinformation. This is why AI can never be smarter than it was in 2021.

      On top of that, due to the indiscriminate DDOSing of the entire internet by AI bots, websites have been blocking any web crawlers that are not Google, which just contributes to their monopoly.

        • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Our key finding is that by injecting information through an external synthetic data verifier, whether a human or a better model, synthetic retraining will not cause model collapse.

          Yeah if you have a source of truth then your model is basically getting trained on that.

          It’s like already having the answer

            • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 minutes ago

              My point was that having a verifier means your not really training a model on another model’s data, it’s basically as if you get new raw data from a non AI source

      • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I’m pretty sure AI is objectively smarter today than it was 5 years ago.

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Since LLMs literally can’t learn, no. They’re just increasingly tweaked to seem even more convincing.

        • SystemDisc@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          This is true, depending on what you mean by smarter. They are undeniably more capable. However, the trendy, cool things is to hate on AI, rejecting all else. Sure, capitalism sucks, and the powerful rich people and companies who control AI suck. AI itself, though, can very easily result in massive benefits for humanity as a whole.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I can’t remember the name, but when the internet was just starting and there were a lot of search engines with no dominate ones, there was an aggregator program that you could input many search engines into, then use it as the searching tool. It would query all the engines and combine, sort, rank, and remove duplicate finds.

      Edit: more specific - It was much like an FTP or torrent program but you’d load up what search engines to use and your search words, and it would actively pull the info then provide a single page with all results.

      The reason I mention it is because we’re sort of back at that point. Google is failing, Bing never was great, and all the alternatives have their issues, usually with not having the same database to work with. So if you gathered all the best ones, the ones without ties to corporate or AI, then put their results together, maybe you’d have something like what Google was at its peak before “do no evil” got painted over.

      Incidentally, Google became what it was/is because it gobbled up a lot of those early search engines’ databases. I miss you, Hotbot. You were a good one.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          No, I don’t see mention of it being an application but like Dogpile is a web-based collector.

          I did a search myself, but (given how searching sucks now) couldn’t find anything. Lots of hits for search engines themselves, but getting past that to other methods back then is difficult.

          It was much like an FTP or torrent program but you’d load up what search engines to use and your search words, and it would actively pull the info then provide a single page with all results.

      • PlantJam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Search used to be so good. I had an old Honda civic that suddenly wouldn’t start. It wasn’t the starter, alternator, or battery. I managed to find a forum post with my exact issue, which was that a small rubber piece on the clutch pressed a button to “tell” the starter it was okay to start. Twenty minutes later I had zip tied a piece of plastic into place and had a working car again.

        If I tried to diagnose that same issue today, it’d be dozens of SEO garbage slop sites without any actual useful information.

        • unglueclass23@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          I was thinking the same thing recently. It’s not the place it once was. But in general the internet has changed a lot. And it’s not just AI.

          1. All sorts of paywalls especially in news sites.
          2. Everything is getting centralized into a few sites and they’re usually either not poorly indexable or not at all (Discord, facebook, X, Instagram and so on)
          3. Fediverse (Lemmy, Mastodon) also struggles with search engines.
          4. People trying to sell you shit, create a brand even more than before. Because of this all sorts of SEO optimization crap is done like writing BS articles nobody cares about.
          5. AI slop.
          6. Search engines have gotten better of getting rid of “illegal stuff”.
          7. A lot of sites are just presentational bloat with no substance. Very cool looking landing pages with all sorts of cool animations but when you need to actually find the information that you need… the same UI usually gets in the way.

          Oh and now we’re getting into age verification crap also yay

          • PlantJam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 hours ago

            An example of number 4, there’s a poster I’ve seen on reddit that’s posting very relevant content, but then every post ends with “@xxxxxxxx on all socials”. It just takes the whole thing from content I might want to engage with to the exact opposite.

        • SillyDude@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I asked gpt5 and it told me to check the clutch safety switch. The thing you fixed.

          • PlantJam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I tried giving minimal information and still got similar results.

            When I think about what got worse about the internet, it’s mostly the life stories before recipes, the novel length pages to maybe answer a simple question, and pretty much anything else related to SEO.

          • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            6 hours ago

            5-10 years ago, you could be pretty sure this was a thing that actually needed checked, since the post about the clutch safety switch was posted by a real person who presumably had the same problem as you and fixed it with this method.

            Now, there’s no way to know if that’s actually the case, or if “clutch safety switch” is just a likely string of words to feed someone who is having car trouble. You might get lucky, or you might get sent on eight consecutive goose chases because an LLM fundamentally doesn’t know what factual knowledge is, it only knows how to reorder and regurgitate things that other people have said in other contexts.

            • fta@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I agree with the larger point you’re making, but chatbots are getting better at referencing posts / websites from which they’re taking a solution.

              That’s if and only if of course they used a web search tool to answer, and if that website is still alive — made less likely due to AI.

              But for debugging something like this, it is actually helpful for now with citations enabled.

          • FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é)@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Isn’t that hyperbole rather than truth? They’re still carbon negative.

            They don’t provide AI by default (at least, I don’t get it). So people like us can continue to not use AI and the hundreds of million who use it every day can still support tree planting.

            I don’t like AI, but if they don’t add it they could risk limiting their reach and environmental goals.

            • RiverRabbits@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 hours ago

              AI companies do not release any numbers themselves for carbon emissions. Therefore, companies that use AI cannot in any certainty claim to be carbon negative or neutral, because they have to count the supply chain emissions as well.

              not adding AI does not stifle environmental goals, in fact you can only truthfully claim to strive for carbon goals if you do not use AI. After all, there is a reason that Microsoft abandoned their emission goals with AI as the cited reason first and foremost, which shows how incredibly dirty AI can be, even if no one releases any sensible metrics.

              • FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é)@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                AI companies do not release any numbers themselves for carbon emissions. I think the EU is even helping them keep that “operationally sensitive information” private, which is a shame.

                not adding AI does not stifle environmental goals I can’t agree or disagree here. I know the demand for AI is huge: hundreds of millions of users per day and at least a billion per week. If Ecosia is seen not to have this feature, I would consider it possible that it hurts their adoption and therefore their goals.

                which shows how incredibly dirty AI can be, even if no one releases any sensible metrics. Yes. I’m not sure how much solace the “world greenest AI” slogan can really offer in that context. https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-ai/ - but when I’m recommending search to someone, I recommend Ecosia over Google, Bing, DDG, Qwant, Mojeek, etc. simply because I think they are more of a net positive than the other options.

                Who knows, maybe in a year or twos time I’ll look back and regret it when more information surfaces. But they’ve been sensible enough until now with their operational choices to reach tree-planting goals.

            • squirrel@cake.kobel.fyi
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              Go to https://ecosia.org in a private browser window. It says “AI that answers to the planet”. Search something and the AI Overview on top is enabled by default.

              I use them with AI disabled, but it should be the default setting.

              Edit: I just did a couple test searches and didn’t get the AI overview. Don’t know what triggers it.

              • unglueclass23@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Go to https://ecosia.org/ in a private browser window. It says “AI that answers to the planet”. Search something and the AI Overview on top is enabled by default.

                For what it’s worth i’ve been using them for like a year and I clear my cookies often and never got this AI overview thingy you’re talking about. I actually have no clue how it even looks like.

              • FarraigePlaisteaċ (sé/é)@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                It’s not me downvoting you, by the way. Anyway, AI is the antithesis of eco-friendly so I share the criticism. But given their success to date I defer to their sense for pragmatism and results.

  • Schwim Dandy@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It’s the same arc every monopolistic corporation has taken before it, AI is just accelerating the pace of consuming your customer/product because profits must always increase.

    There will be no large scale shift from these experiences because most people are either ok, apathetic or blissfully ignorant to the situation, the best you can do is to remove yourself from the exploitation of the userbase. Linux instead of Windows or Android, Almost any search engine other than Google, fediverse instead of reddit, etc.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    We put this real question to AI Mode, “Why does Google Search suck now?” And you won’t believe the answer! (Actually, you won’t be surprised.)

    The Chocolate Factory’s AI search substitute offered this completely trustworthy reply:

    "You are definitely not imagining it. Users, tech critics, and researchers have documented a measurable decline in Google Search quality. The core issue is that the search engine no longer feels like a tool designed to find the best corner of the web; instead, it feels like a vehicle designed to keep you on Google-owned properties or clicking on monetized links.

    “The degradation of Google Search stems from a mix of aggressive monetization, an ongoing arms race with web spammers, and the disruptive introduction of AI features.”

    AI is gonna be the same path. Once people trust it, it’ll stop mattering if it give the best info, what matters is if people buy products and believe advertisements/propaganda.

    There just will never be as much money in providing nonbiased and accurate answers as there is in manipulating people. So as long as capitalism runs everything, the end goal will always be manipulating people for someone’s profit.

    It’s not an accident, it’s not “enshitification”, it’s the natural and inevitable result of unregulated capitalism. The only way to avoid it, is to heavily regulate capitalism. Acting like it’s a separate problem that can be avoided without regulating capitalism just makes people think we can make unregulated capitalism work, if we could it would be working already.