←back to thread

693 points jsheard | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.309s | source
Show context
jsheard ◴[] No.45093187[source]
Reading this I assumed it was down to the AI confusing two different Benn Jordans, but nope, the guy who actually published that video is called Ryan McBeth. How does that even happen?
replies(3): >>45093254 #>>45093905 #>>45095851 #
frozenlettuce ◴[] No.45093254[source]
The model that google is using to handle requests in their search page is probably dumber than the other ones for cost savings. Not sure if this would be a smart move, as search with ads is their flagship product. It would be better having no ai in search at all.
replies(5): >>45093374 #>>45093575 #>>45094882 #>>45095359 #>>45095635 #
lioeters ◴[] No.45093575[source]
> better having no ai in search

But then the product manager wouldn't get a promotion. They don't seem to care about providing a good service anymore.

> probably dumber than the other ones for cost savings

It's amusing how anyone at Google thinks offering a subpar and error-prone AI search result would not affect their reputation worse than it already is.

It's making stuff up, giving bad or fatal advice, promoting false political narratives, stealing content and link juice from actual content creators. They're abusing their anti-competitively dominant position, and just burning good will like it's gonna last forever. Maybe they're too big to fail, and they no longer need reputation or the trust of the public.

replies(1): >>45093916 #
hattmall ◴[] No.45093916[source]
Bad information is inherently better for Google than correct information. If you get the correct information you only do one search. If you get bad, or misleading information that requires you to perform more searches that it is definitely better for Google.
replies(4): >>45094023 #>>45094052 #>>45094413 #>>45094846 #
1. delichon ◴[] No.45094023[source]
This is a variation of the parable of the broken window. It is addressed in what may be the most influential essay in modern economics, "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

replies(2): >>45095373 #>>45096908 #
2. PhantomHour ◴[] No.45095373[source]
What's your point here? That Google wouldn't do this because "the broken window fallacy is a fallacy"?

We have them on the record in multiple lawsuits stating that they did exactly this.

3. RugnirViking ◴[] No.45096908[source]
I've never liked that parable; it seems to me an incredibly poor argument, standing on its own. It literally itself contrasts the definite circulation of money in the destruction case, with a "could" spend on other things. Or he could not. He could have kept it, waiting for another opportunity later, reducing the velocity of money and contributing to inequality.

It doesn't even cover non-renewable resources, or state that the window intact is a form of wealth on its own!

I'm not naive, I'm sure thousands have made these arguments before me. I do think intact windows are good. I'm just surprised that particular framing is the one that became the standard