• kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months 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.