Most active commenters
  • chillfox(3)

←back to thread

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

(www.cnbc.com)
858 points colesantiago | 11 comments | 02 Sep 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.041s | source | bottom
Show context
fidotron ◴[02 Sep 25 21:05 UTC] No.45109040[source]▶
This is an astonishing victory for Google, they must be very happy about it.

They get basically everything they want (keeping it all in the tent), plus a negotiating position on search deals where they can refuse something because they can't do it now.

Quite why the judge is so concerned about the rise of AI factoring in here is beyond me. It's fundamentally an anticompetitive decision.

replies(14): >>45109129 #>>45109143 #>>45109176 #>>45109242 #>>45109344 #>>45109424 #>>45109874 #>>45110957 #>>45111490 #>>45112791 #>>45113305 #>>45114522 #>>45114640 #>>45114837 #
stackskipton ◴[02 Sep 25 21:13 UTC] No.45109143[source]▶
Feels like judge was looking for any excuse not to apply harsh penalty and since Google brought up AI as competitor, the judge accepted it as acceptable excuse for very minor penalty.
replies(5): >>45109155 #>>45109230 #>>45109607 #>>45110548 #>>45111401 #
IshKebab ◴[02 Sep 25 21:53 UTC] No.45109607[source]▶
AI is a competitor. You know how StackOverflow is dead because AI provided an alternative? That's happening in search too.

You might think "but ChatGPT isn't a search engine", and that's true. It can't handle all queries you might use a search engine for, e.g. if you want to find a particular website. But there are many many queries that it can handle. Here's just a few from my recent history:

* How do I load a shared library and call a function from it with VCS? [Kind of surprising it got the answer to this given how locked down the documentation is.]

* In a PAM config what do they keywords auth, account, password, session, and also required/sufficient mean?

* What do you call the thing that car roof bars attach to? The thing that goes front to back?

* How do I right-pad a string with spaces using printf?

These are all things I would have gone to Google for before, but ChatGPT gives a better overall experience now.

Yes, overall, because while it bullshits sometimes, it also cuts to the chase a lot more. And no ads for now! (Btw, someone gave me the hint to set its personality mode to "Robot", and that really helps make it less annoying!)

replies(18): >>45109744 #>>45109797 #>>45109845 #>>45110045 #>>45110103 #>>45110268 #>>45110374 #>>45110635 #>>45110732 #>>45110800 #>>45110974 #>>45111115 #>>45111621 #>>45112242 #>>45112983 #>>45113040 #>>45113693 #>>45135719 #
1. ryandrake ◴[03 Sep 25 00:15 UTC] No.45110800[source]▶
Is it common to use Internet search like that??? You're typing in literal questions to a search box rather than keywords, the name of the site you're looking for, or topics you want to read about. Maybe I'm just too old school, from the time where internet searches were essentially keyword searches, but it would have never occurred to me to type an actual english question as a full sentence into a search box.

If that's how most people use search engines these days, then I guess the transition into "type a prompt" will be smoother than I would have thought.

replies(6): >>45110888 #>>45110954 #>>45111762 #>>45112181 #>>45112361 #>>45112857 #
2. fwipsy ◴[03 Sep 25 00:30 UTC] No.45110888[source]▶
I think those are examples of AI prompts, not search queries. Searching sometimes requires effort even for simple questions. For example, if you're trying to find the word for an object, you might need to consider what sort of website might talk about that, how to find that website in a sea of SEO spam, and then read through the article manually to find the specific information you are looking for. Using an AI, you can just ask "what is xyz called" and get a quick answer.
replies(1): >>45110981 #
3. chillfox ◴[03 Sep 25 00:39 UTC] No.45110954[source]▶
It's been common for the last decade. It's been a great way of finding forum/blog posts where the question is answered, even if phrased slightly different.
4. chillfox ◴[03 Sep 25 00:42 UTC] No.45110981[source]▶
Search engines have been good at answering those kinds of questions for the last decade. SEO spam often answers simple questions like that.
replies(1): >>45116134 #
5. balder1991 ◴[03 Sep 25 02:44 UTC] No.45111762[source]▶
I’m quite sure it was common, because Google optimized for that over time, that’s why they switched to a semantic search instead of actual “contains” (remember they had a few questions and answers at the top way before ChatGPT).

Also if you type a few words on Google, it’ll “autocomplete” with the most common searches. Or you can just go to trends.google.com and explore search trends in real time.

6. rascul ◴[03 Sep 25 04:09 UTC] No.45112181[source]▶
Isn't that what Ask Jeeves was for in the 90s?
7. unethical_ban ◴[03 Sep 25 04:53 UTC] No.45112361[source]▶
The questions above would be changed up for a Google search. The point is that LLMs can answer those questions pretty accurately now. I'm using LLMs to write technical cheat sheets for Linux sysadmin stuff, and to write a hobby website. I'm using search far less than before.
8. keiferski ◴[03 Sep 25 06:35 UTC] No.45112857[source]▶
I have been using computers since the early 2000s, and I honestly don't remember the last time I searched Google for an answer to a specific question. It's incredibly inefficient compared to the even the most basic AI tool.
9. fwipsy ◴[03 Sep 25 14:20 UTC] No.45116134{3}[source]▶
You can find the answer this way if the query is simple enough, but in general, if you are asking for something specific or trying to retrieve a piece of information based on keywords it's not usually indexed by, AI will do better. For example, "how are large concrete piers supporting a roadway constructed on a 45 degree slope?" Claude gave me an answer immediately, most Google results for my first two queries weren't specific enough/didn't include all details. I'm sure Google could find the answer, but asking Claude is just easier.
replies(2): >>45125290 #>>45135841 #
10. chillfox ◴[04 Sep 25 09:24 UTC] No.45125290{4}[source]▶
I would not call that example simple, that's a pretty complex question.
11. johnnyanmac ◴[05 Sep 25 07:18 UTC] No.45135841{4}[source]▶
>Claude gave me an answer immediately

yes, but was it a good answer? were any sources backing up the answer credible (or even present)?

I don't know why we are suddenly so confortable trading speed for accuracy. Rule 0 of optiization involves making sure the probalem is actually being solved.