←back to thread

Death by AI

(davebarry.substack.com)
583 points ano-ther | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jwr ◴[] No.44619638[source]
I'd say this isn't just an AI overview thing. It's a Google thing. Google will sometimes show inaccurate information and there is usually no way to correct it. Various "feedback" forms are mostly ignored.

I had to fight a similar battle with Google Maps, which most people believe to be a source of truth, and it took years until incorrect information was changed. I'm not even sure if it was because of all the feedback I provided.

I see Google as a firehose of information that they spit at me ("feed"), they are too big to be concerned about any inconsistencies, as these don't hurt their business model.

replies(8): >>44619848 #>>44619963 #>>44620197 #>>44620958 #>>44620991 #>>44621577 #>>44622598 #>>44628583 #
muglug ◴[] No.44619848[source]
No, this is very much an AI overview thing. In the beginning Google put the most likely-to-match-your-query result at the top, and you could click the link to see whether it answered your question.

Now, frequently, the AI summaries are on top. The AI summary LLM is clearly a very fast, very dumb LLM that’s cheap enough to run on webpage text for every search result.

That was a product decision, and a very bad one. Currently a search for "Suicide Squad" yields

> The phrase "suide side squad" appears to be a misspelling of "Suicide Squad"

replies(2): >>44621904 #>>44622094 #
weatherlite ◴[] No.44621904[source]
> That was a product decision, and a very bad one.

I don't know that it's a bad decision, time will judge it. Also, we can expect the quality of the results to improve over time. I think Google saw a real threat to their search business and had to respond.

replies(3): >>44622089 #>>44622096 #>>44639106 #
gambiting ◴[] No.44622089[source]
The threat to their search business had nothing to do with AI but with the insane amount of SEO-ing they allowed to rake in cash. Their results have been garbage for years, even for tech stuff where they traditionally excelled - searching for "what does class X do in .NET" yields several results for paid programming courses rather than the actual answer, and that's not an AI problem.
replies(1): >>44622132 #
bee_rider ◴[] No.44622132[source]
SEO-wise (and in no other way), I think we should have more sympathy for Google. They are just… losing at the cat-and-mouse game. They are playing cat against a whole world of mice, I don’t think anyone other than pre-decline Google could win it.
replies(6): >>44622282 #>>44624595 #>>44625499 #>>44627835 #>>44629397 #>>44633660 #
anonymars ◴[] No.44624595{5}[source]
I understand what you're saying, but also supposedly at some point quality deliberately took a back seat to "growth"

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/

> The key event in the piece is a “Code Yellow” crisis declared in 2019 by Google’s ads and finance teams, which had forecast a disappointing quarter. In response, Raghavan pushed Ben Gomes — the erstwhile head of Google Search, and a genuine pioneer in search technology — to increase the number of queries people made by any means necessary.

(Quoting from this follow-up post: https://www.wheresyoured.at/requiem-for-raghavan/)

replies(1): >>44631092 #
1. anonymars ◴[] No.44631092{6}[source]
Btw this was the HN discussion, I realized, well, where else would I have come across that?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40133976