←back to thread

693 points jsheard | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | 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. chabes ◴[] No.45094052[source]
Perverse incentive structure